[odf-discuss] On covenants

[Alex Hudson]

I'm going to boil this down to what seems to be the pertinent point.

marbux: you say "patent claims necessary to conform to the
specifications" roughly means "those patent claims whose text content
has to be included into any program code which implements OpenXML". If
that is your interpretation, there is little point arguing the matter,
because I simply will not read it that way. That interpretation is
indeed nonsense, and if you hold to it, you're within your rights to say
that you think the covenant is gibberish.

As I said, I don't read it that way, and have no problem understanding
what "necessary patent claims" are - and, given the wide usage of the
term (e.g., IETF, W3C), I don't think I'm alone. If you could point me
to a reference who agrees with your interpretation of those words, I
would be grateful. As I said before:

>>     * I don't have a problem with "patent claims necessary to conform".
>>       You seem to interpret this as saying "software which has the text
>>       of the patent claims written into it" - I interpret it as
>>       "software containing methods claimed by patents". I argue the
>>       former interpretation is unintelligible, not the latter.
>>
> Precisely. You're starting to get it. Thank you for acknowledging that
> it is nonsense. And as explained above, patent claims (oranges) and
> the methods and concepts they describe (peaches) are two distinct and
> separate concepts. They are on different planes of existence.
> Therefore, your interpretation is wrong and mine is right. 

Sorry, but no. I have pointed out that the two interpretations are
distinct, but that "acknowledgment" that yours is nonsense doesn't
logically lead to "marbux is right". I grant you that your
interpretation is gibberish; I don't acknowledge that your
interpretation is correct.

>> I struggle to see how a Java interpreter could be defined as an "ODF
>> implementation". Note that Sun said "implementation", not "application"
>> or "software product" or any other phrase which means "the whole thing".
>
> You postulated a "Java interpreter that natively read/wrote
> OpenDocument." I gave you a link to the common and ordinary definition
> of "implement" and "implementation." The meaning of the root
> "implement" is "[t]o put into practical effect; carry out." 

You think that a Java interpreter is somehow a piece of software which
"puts into practical effect" the OpenDocument specification? The
application I described might _contain_ an implementation of the
OpenDocument specification, but it certainly is not _the_ implementation.

I don't think Sun has opened the doors for everyone to use the entirety
of their patent portfolio, which is what you're effectively suggesting.

-- 
Alex Hudson
IT Director, Stratagia Ltd.
P: 0845 226 17 13     W: http://www.stratagia.co.uk/
F: 0845 226 17 14     E: alex (at) stratagia.co.uk