On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:36:02PM +0000, simo wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 16:45 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Actually, I'm more concerned with the lack of response to the patent issue, which legitimises Microsoft's software patents.
Citing from: http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/
"Although we were disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe."
It addresses them alright, by acknowledging them.
"The patent list provides us with a bounded set of work needed to ensure non-infringement of Samba and other Free Software projects that implement the protocols documented by Microsoft under this agreement.
Admission of defeat "a priori". Let's hope there isn't a fatal patent (one which can't be circunvented and which will forbid Samba from competing).
Last, but not least, remember that software patents exist and are valid in the USA. Ignoring this fact would make any antitrust ruling worthless and meaningless for Free Software as Free Software has no boundaries.
Hello? EC and Court of Justice have no jurisdiction outside EU. Any ruling that that justifies not following EU law because of USA law is ... dubious to say the least?
I won't answer to the rest, I see no point to as you have already decided what is true and false, right and wrong, important and not, and are not willing to "discuss" and learn what lead to the current agreement and why it was done this way but you just want to assert your point of view. I do not agree with it, so we will just not agree.
You keep turning away from the patent issue in Europe. You don't keep focus, they take that opportunity and bite you the behind (like they did).
Rui
ps: I'll try to ignore your accusations, since I've grown to understand that's your style, accuse and paternally downplay.