From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2007 - 23:09:12 CST
> So for me, the IBM patent licencing on SCSU is protecting little, as very small changes are needed to create something that would be in fact nearer from past works, and could legitimately claimed as works derived from prior works not under the IBM patent claims.
I wasn't aware that IBM was trying to patent or license SCSU, which is
clearly based on an encoding invented by Reuters. Are you just being
unclear here, or are you trying to muddle the waters deliberately?
> And because the exact algorithm is patented but licenced for royaltee-free use and distribution, what is the interest of keeping such patent on it? Why IBM does not simply declare that the patent will never be changed back to be payable for its use or redistribution? Keeping the patent only as a security against claimsmade by any concurrent that could acquire it and decide to licence it differently against payments for its use and research?
All this is pure speculation - if the process requires a licence, then
the licence terms themselves govern whether there is a possibility of
revocation, or termination for cause or for any other reason. The fact
that you have to go through a licence process means that the letter from
IBM that was published with drafts of BOCU is a lot less binding than
the letter that came with UTF-EBCDIC. And that is what makes the process
both more opaque and more risky to developers.
And as Mike's earlier message suggests, even the promise of getting any
licence may not be honored....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 25 2007 - 23:10:30 CST