Re: Potential Partial Solution

Scott Cadillac wrote:

>I hear ya...
>
>But if you don't have any dishes left to eat off, how are you going to feed
>yourself?
>
yeah, but if the dishes are taken away from you in the first place you 
are still not going to feed yourself. 

This case in my point of view is the tip of the ice berg...  Remember 
500 million is not small potatoes...  This will embold lawyers and 
potentially start a mess beyond all proportions.  Think about how much 
of a mess liability insurance is in.  Do we really want this?

>What about a move in the "opposite" direction? And deliberately ignore the
>ruling?
>  
>
Ignorance is not an answer.

>Currently only Microsoft is being forced to comply, but I'm sure other
>Browser makers will follow.
>
It starts with the deepest pockets.  Luckily many in the Open Source 
community see this and are with MS on this one. (Or at least that is my 
opinion from talking to people).  It is a good step by MS talking to the 
community and asking for opinions.

>This is how people speak out - and THEN maybe the legitimacy of the Patent
>Office would finally be called into question.
>
I think in a way the patent issue is a good way of moving towards the 
semantec web with Web Services and all of the other nice and neat 
things.  There are plenty of neat things that could be implemented. 

However, in my opinion I think this answer requires a two-step 
solution.  Breaking some dishes to stop this mess in the future, while 
in the background coming out with a "new" and "improved" web.  Just 
letting MS take this in the stomach opens us the community up to further 
potential lawsuits even when the "new" and "improved" web has been 
created. 

Christian Gross

Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 13:11:56 UTC