RE: Potential Partial Solution

You raise some excellent points Christian,

Almost too many points to handle I fear.

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

I agree, but my statement was more about defense than foregoing knowledge.
Maybe I should have used the word "boycott" instead?



> 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.

I sure hope the OSS crowd gets the message. 

A brief look at www.slashdot.org on any given day just confirms for me that
the anti-Microsoft crowd will fail to see this point because of their
anti-vision (a.k.a. blindness), even after the Internet has been pulled out
from under them.



> 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. 

I agree completely. Since the Internet came along, and the beauty of it was
realized, many industries have learned that they needed to adapt to survive
- except the Patent Office.

Patent Offices wants to keep everybody in the stone age of industry.

If what Gandhi said is true, and I believe it is, that "You have to be the
change you want to see in the world" - then the Patent Office's view of the
world is a very frightening thing......


Scott Cadillac,
XML-Extranet - http://xmlx.ca
403-281-6090 - scott@xmlx.ca
Well-formed Development
--
Extranet solutions using C# .NET, Witango, MSIE and XML


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> SerpentMage (Christian Gross)
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:12 AM
> To: scott@xmlx.ca
> Cc: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> Subject: 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 13:56:03 UTC