[odf-discuss] On covenants

[Thomas Zander]

On Monday 06 November 2006 18:05, Alex Hudson wrote:
> 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:

You two arguing over this kinda also proves Marbux point, what the court 
will rule on any such case is not clear and there are no guarantees. 
Not something you want to build a business on.

ps. Alex, are you a lawyer?
Maybe you should be aware that Marbux is (or was, rather).
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20061106/0f472aaf/attachment-0002.pgp