Clarification Re: Should we worry about Sun's patents?
Gabriel,
I must clarify further. I mean that existence or non-existence
of patents should not affect the procedures we follow in
formulating the standard. That is the direct answer to
Arnold's question. Although, not being lawyers, we shouldn't
speculate on those patents, it is possible that their existence
might influence the way particular people vote.
When I made my comment on "cost of implementation," I was thinking
not only of possibly patented features, but of the general set
of features the working group
might mandate. Also, at least some (if not all) of the Sun
patents concern hardware implementation.
My understanding of the purpose of "letter of assurance" to IEEE
is to protect IEEE legally and to clarify practicality of
implementation of the standard. To verify this, IEEE lawyers
should be contacted.
For more background on the patents, I refer you to the
reliable_computing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list. In the
mean time, I'll send out inquiries concerning the status of
the letter of assurance. (I had thought it had gone through, but
maybe more action on my part is required.) Although Sun is presently
in flux, it may be easier to get answers now than when Sun becomes
a part of Oracle.
Baker
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arnold,
On carefully re-reading your post, I see you said
"I'd like to ask for clarification how/whether the existence of these
patents should affect the standardization procedure."
That is different from "affect whether we obtain a standard" or
"affect cost of implementation of the standard."
I CAN answer the precise question you ask, with "No." That is,
my belief is that we should proceeding without worrying about
Sun's patents. That's a job for someone else. If Sun has
an interest it feels is being countered by the standardization
decisions being made by P-1788, it can direct its representative
on P-1788 to represent Sun accordingly. We should act
according to our goals, but I suggest we should occasionally
search our own souls to focus precisely on what our own goals
are (especially if we are in academia and not constrained by
commercial interests).
Can the standard be implemented at reasonable cost
without "falling" into those patents?
This situation places another constraints: that we have an encumbered
and reasonable implementation of the spec we end up producing as a
proof-of-concept.
-- Gaby
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------