[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?

From: Kurt Häusler
Subject: Re: Are Microsoft’s patent lawyers really this dumb?
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 05:53:26 -0500
User-agent: pan 0.120 (Plate of Shrimp)

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:36:20 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:

> If *you* own the copyrights, then *you* can choose what license you want
> to release the software under.
> If your company owns the copyrights, then your company can choose what
> license it wants to release the software under.
> Copyright ownership is the important thing - not patents.

Well that's an issue in itself, I am now unsure who owns it. I had up
till now assumed that the copyright was assigned to the FSF but apparently
that's not the case. I misunderstood what I was doing, as it isn't that
straightforward, for a non lawyer. The basics are but all the nooks and
crannies are where issues tend to pop up.

> Besides, mathematics is not patentable - and software is applied
> mathematics.

It is in some jurisdictions though isn't it? Otherwise what sorts of
patents is the GPLv3 attempting to protect against?

Yes I know I lack in knowledge about the legal issues and probably
shouldn't be concerning myself with licenses, patents and copyrights but I
feel you have to these days and so its never too late to catch up.

I am not really worried about the driver I wrote a while back as its for
obsolete technology and unlikely to provoke much in the way of legal
troubles but it would be nice to be armed with knowledge for future

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]