W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > August 2003

RE: Why a license deal is ONLY good for Microsoft

From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:49:47 -0400
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <026601c36f6a$8a8563c0$550ffea9@rms>

Microsoft already has a monopoly on the browser market. 

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Chase
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 7:05 PM
To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
Subject: Why a license deal is ONLY good for Microsoft



If Microsoft does a license deal with Eolas, and nobody else can
afford to do it, they effectively gain a legal monopoly on the
browser.  Eolas doesn't HAVE to give Mozilla.org a royalty-free
license.  Opera isn't non-profit (as far as I'm aware).  And anybody
else gets shut out of the market.  Period.  It might make it easier
for those of you who build exclusively for MSIE, but some of us
perfer to have a choice.

Fact is, there IS prior art, and just because it was completed at
the same "company" that owns the '906 patent (the University of
California) shouldn't make a difference.

Now, I hate to say this, because I'm not, in the grand scheme of
things, a Microsoft supporter, but I'm GLAD they're pulling the
plug on plug-ins.  Let Eolas and U of C have their money, but I
don't want to continue to pay blood money to Eolas for something
that somebody else did 17 months before they filed their paperwork.

And maybe, just maybe, Congress will wake up to how STUPID software
patents are.

----  Nick
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2003 22:49:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:07:55 GMT