[odf-discuss] On covenants

[Alex Hudson]

marbux wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Alex Hudson <alex at stratagia.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You are ignoring context again. The CNS does not say "necessary patent
> claims;" it says "patent claims necessary to conform to the technical
> specifications."

No; I don't think it's ignorance. It makes no difference.

It really isn't worth arguing the point with me; you cannot convince me
that anyone, aside from you, would interpret the CNS to say "legal text
which must be included in the software for it to implement OpenXML". It
is a meaningless statement, and I would challenge you to find someone
else who supports that interpretation.

If it were such an obvious problem, I would have thought that Larry
Rosen, Andy Updegrove and the other lawyers who've looked at this would
have picked up on it, and it seems an obviously different interpretation
from one which you've held previously:

    "In the first step, Microsoft makes promises only regarding its
    "patent claims necessary to conform" to its file format
    specification. I assume that somewhat bewildering phrase means that
    Microsoft is making no promises regarding patent claims not
    necessarily infringed by a "conforming part" of a software application."

    -- http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051129101457378


Did you later reprimand yourself for implying the word "infringed" into
the CNS, or was your change of mind for a different reason?

I'm quite happy to grant that the MS covenant is not as broad as the Sun
one, but to argue that it is actually meaningless I think is wrong.

-- 
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