microsft get the license : object serialize to xml

Discussion in 'Java' started by Peter, May 30, 2005.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    Hi
    As the title, microsoft get the license of serial an object to XML,
    if i do this in Java, will i get sue?

    thanks
    from Peter ()
     
    Peter, May 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter

    Mark Preston Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > Hi
    > As the title, microsoft get the license of serial an object to XML,
    > if i do this in Java, will i get sue?
    >

    Well, not only IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but IANA (I am not American),
    but if this disgraceful patent stands up in any court that doesn't have
    Mickey Mouse as the judge and jury, it is a disgrace. The patent (not
    licence) is simply indefensible and ludicrous so go ahead and let them
    sue if they want to.
     
    Mark Preston, May 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter

    Chris Smith Guest

    Mark Preston <> wrote:
    > Well, not only IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but IANA (I am not American),
    > but if this disgraceful patent stands up in any court that doesn't have
    > Mickey Mouse as the judge and jury, it is a disgrace. The patent (not
    > licence) is simply indefensible and ludicrous so go ahead and let them
    > sue if they want to.


    Since you are not an American, you can be excused for not understanding
    our legal system. Lawsuits are not won by making the best arguments.
    They are won by having the most money.

    If the judge is not even aware of the meaning of the letters 'X', 'M',
    and 'L' in that order (and most judges aren't), then you'll have to
    explain this at some point in the case (or preferably, pay an "expert"
    to take the stand and explain it). But you can bet that somewhere in
    the thousands of pages of paperwork filed by a mega-corporation's
    attorneys will be a request for the judge not to allow your expert to
    testify, and/or a request to deem you incompetent to speak on the matter
    of the definition and role of XML. And since you didn't have a team of
    legal aids to read through that thousand pages of paperwork and you
    don't understand legalese anyway, you probably missed that and didn't
    contest the request by the plaintiff, and the judge ruled in their
    favor.

    Furthermore, the jury of "peers" is actually a jury of average Americans
    who take pride in being "computer illiterate". And since you didn't get
    to explain the technical situation to them anyway, they will be in their
    element. They will see the case as: Microsoft says that this guy
    infringed on their patent by <<technobabble>>. Microsoft clearly has
    the patent on <<technobabble>>, and this guy clearly did
    <<technobabble>>. So the case seems pretty obvious.

    Of course, you're far more likely to win in appeals where the tone will
    be more intellectual, *if* you possess a lawyer with the skill to make
    sure the case gets to appeals... and then how much money have you spent
    so far?

    Of course, I don't think that we all need to avoid writing software that
    serializes objects to XML. That's ridiculous, and if you did so, you'd
    just be infringing one less in your long line of patent infringements.
    I would be shocked if *any* competent living computer programmer were
    not guilty of infringing at least a dozen patents that they don't even
    know about; there's just no way to avoid it. The answer is to hope,
    pray, and try to see that people are aware of the problem so that it
    might be fixed in the future.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
     
    Chris Smith, May 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Peter

    Chris Uppal Guest

    Chris Smith wrote:

    > The answer is to hope,
    > pray, and try to see that people are aware of the problem so that it
    > might be fixed in the future.


    And, in so far as you (and I) legitimately can, to ensure that you /don't/ jump
    though hoops to avoid the possibility of patent litigation. The system has to
    collapse sooner or later, and -- until then -- they can't sue us all...

    -- chris
     
    Chris Uppal, May 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Peter

    . Guest

    On Mon, 30 May 2005, Chris Smith wrote:

    > Mark Preston <> wrote:
    > > Well, not only IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but IANA (I am not American),
    > > but if this disgraceful patent stands up in any court that doesn't have
    > > Mickey Mouse as the judge and jury, it is a disgrace. The patent (not
    > > licence) is simply indefensible and ludicrous so go ahead and let them
    > > sue if they want to.

    >
    > Since you are not an American, you can be excused for not understanding
    > our legal system. Lawsuits are not won by making the best arguments.
    > They are won by having the most money.
    >
    > If the judge is not even aware of the meaning of the letters 'X', 'M',
    > and 'L' in that order (and most judges aren't), then you'll have to
    > explain this at some point in the case (or preferably, pay an "expert"
    > to take the stand and explain it). But you can bet that somewhere in
    > the thousands of pages of paperwork filed by a mega-corporation's
    > attorneys will be a request for the judge not to allow your expert to
    > testify, and/or a request to deem you incompetent to speak on the matter
    > of the definition and role of XML. And since you didn't have a team of
    > legal aids to read through that thousand pages of paperwork and you
    > don't understand legalese anyway, you probably missed that and didn't
    > contest the request by the plaintiff, and the judge ruled in their
    > favor.
    >
    > Furthermore, the jury of "peers" is actually a jury of average Americans
    > who take pride in being "computer illiterate". And since you didn't get
    > to explain the technical situation to them anyway, they will be in their
    > element. They will see the case as: Microsoft says that this guy
    > infringed on their patent by <<technobabble>>. Microsoft clearly has
    > the patent on <<technobabble>>, and this guy clearly did
    > <<technobabble>>. So the case seems pretty obvious.
    >
    > Of course, you're far more likely to win in appeals where the tone will
    > be more intellectual, *if* you possess a lawyer with the skill to make
    > sure the case gets to appeals... and then how much money have you spent
    > so far?
    >
    > Of course, I don't think that we all need to avoid writing software that
    > serializes objects to XML. That's ridiculous, and if you did so, you'd
    > just be infringing one less in your long line of patent infringements.
    > I would be shocked if *any* competent living computer programmer were
    > not guilty of infringing at least a dozen patents that they don't even
    > know about; there's just no way to avoid it. The answer is to hope,
    > pray, and try to see that people are aware of the problem so that it
    > might be fixed in the future.


    Good answer. I'd like to add that you don't have to worry until you are
    making enough money from the application to be worth suing. If the
    application makes you less money than it costs the company to retain all
    those lawyers then they will not sue you. If on the other hand your
    product takes off and makes you millions, they might notice you and take
    most of everything you own.

    > --
    > www.designacourse.com
    > The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.
    >
    > Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    > MindIQ Corporation
    >


    --
    Send e-mail to: darrell dot grainger at utoronto dot ca
     
    ., May 30, 2005
    #5
  6. "." <> scribbled the following:
    > On Mon, 30 May 2005, Chris Smith wrote:
    >> Mark Preston <> wrote:
    >> > Well, not only IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but IANA (I am not American),
    >> > but if this disgraceful patent stands up in any court that doesn't have
    >> > Mickey Mouse as the judge and jury, it is a disgrace. The patent (not
    >> > licence) is simply indefensible and ludicrous so go ahead and let them
    >> > sue if they want to.

    >>
    >> Since you are not an American, you can be excused for not understanding
    >> our legal system. Lawsuits are not won by making the best arguments.
    >> They are won by having the most money.
    >>
    >> If the judge is not even aware of the meaning of the letters 'X', 'M',
    >> and 'L' in that order (and most judges aren't), then you'll have to
    >> explain this at some point in the case (or preferably, pay an "expert"
    >> to take the stand and explain it). But you can bet that somewhere in
    >> the thousands of pages of paperwork filed by a mega-corporation's
    >> attorneys will be a request for the judge not to allow your expert to
    >> testify, and/or a request to deem you incompetent to speak on the matter
    >> of the definition and role of XML. And since you didn't have a team of
    >> legal aids to read through that thousand pages of paperwork and you
    >> don't understand legalese anyway, you probably missed that and didn't
    >> contest the request by the plaintiff, and the judge ruled in their
    >> favor.
    >>
    >> Furthermore, the jury of "peers" is actually a jury of average Americans
    >> who take pride in being "computer illiterate". And since you didn't get
    >> to explain the technical situation to them anyway, they will be in their
    >> element. They will see the case as: Microsoft says that this guy
    >> infringed on their patent by <<technobabble>>. Microsoft clearly has
    >> the patent on <<technobabble>>, and this guy clearly did
    >> <<technobabble>>. So the case seems pretty obvious.
    >>
    >> Of course, you're far more likely to win in appeals where the tone will
    >> be more intellectual, *if* you possess a lawyer with the skill to make
    >> sure the case gets to appeals... and then how much money have you spent
    >> so far?
    >>
    >> Of course, I don't think that we all need to avoid writing software that
    >> serializes objects to XML. That's ridiculous, and if you did so, you'd
    >> just be infringing one less in your long line of patent infringements.
    >> I would be shocked if *any* competent living computer programmer were
    >> not guilty of infringing at least a dozen patents that they don't even
    >> know about; there's just no way to avoid it. The answer is to hope,
    >> pray, and try to see that people are aware of the problem so that it
    >> might be fixed in the future.


    > Good answer. I'd like to add that you don't have to worry until you are
    > making enough money from the application to be worth suing. If the
    > application makes you less money than it costs the company to retain all
    > those lawyers then they will not sue you. If on the other hand your
    > product takes off and makes you millions, they might notice you and take
    > most of everything you own.


    So the moral of the story is: Don't make money in the IT industry.
    Otherwise Microsoft will sue you for sealing everything that has been
    known since Charles Babbage first thought "Hey, maybe I'll make a
    machine that adds things some day" from them, and leave you scavenging
    the gutters for your next meal.

    --
    /-- Joona Palaste () ------------- Finland --------\
    \-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
    "War! Huh! Good God, y'all! What is it good for? We asked Mayor Quimby."
    - Kent Brockman
     
    Joona I Palaste, May 31, 2005
    #6
  7. Peter

    Chris Smith Guest

    Joona I Palaste <> wrote:
    > So the moral of the story is: Don't make money in the IT industry.
    > Otherwise Microsoft will sue you for sealing everything that has been
    > known since Charles Babbage first thought "Hey, maybe I'll make a
    > machine that adds things some day" from them, and leave you scavenging
    > the gutters for your next meal.


    While Microsoft isn't exactly the shining star of corporate morality,
    filing frivolous patent lawsuits is not something they've been a pioneer
    of. For that, IBM stands out (though not since a court settlement
    decades ago, and the corporate attitude seems to have been very
    thoroughly changed since then). Microsoft is probably not even in the
    top 100 in terms of threatening patent lawsuits. Granted, they have
    made scary statements in the past.

    Of course, what's broken is the system rather than any specific abuser
    of it. The system makes it possible to obtain patents, and the NYSE has
    effectively promoted the B.S. idea that corporate executives are morally
    obliged to produce profit in any way possible because they don't own the
    company. Lots of people with good intentions end up making wrong
    choices as a result.

    But yes, the idea is generally correct: if you don't want to be the
    target of a lawsuit, don't be visible (meaning, don't threaten or upset
    large players with patent portfolios). The other option -- avoiding
    grounds for litigation -- is doomed in practice.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
     
    Chris Smith, May 31, 2005
    #7
  8. Andrew Thompson, Jun 1, 2005
    #8
  9. On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:36:50AM +0000, Joona I Palaste wrote:

    > So the moral of the story is: Don't make money in the IT industry.
    > Otherwise Microsoft will sue you for sealing everything that has been
    > known since Charles Babbage first thought "Hey, maybe I'll make a
    > machine that adds things some day" from them, and leave you scavenging
    > the gutters for your next meal.


    Or you fight for a law against software patents. Please help us:
    www.nosoftwarepatents.com

    Iván Villanueva
    --
    Encrypted mail preferred.
    GPG Key Id: 3FDBF85F 2004-10-18 Ivan-Fernando Villanueva Barrio
     
    Ivan Villanueva, Jun 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Peter

    Guest

    Chris Smith 寫é“:
    > Mark Preston <> wrote:
    > > Well, not only IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but IANA (I am not American),
    > > but if this disgraceful patent stands up in any court that doesn't have
    > > Mickey Mouse as the judge and jury, it is a disgrace. The patent (not
    > > licence) is simply indefensible and ludicrous so go ahead and let them
    > > sue if they want to.

    >
    > Since you are not an American, you can be excused for not understanding
    > our legal system. Lawsuits are not won by making the best arguments.
    > They are won by having the most money.
    >
    > If the judge is not even aware of the meaning of the letters 'X', 'M',
    > and 'L' in that order (and most judges aren't), then you'll have to
    > explain this at some point in the case (or preferably, pay an "expert"
    > to take the stand and explain it). But you can bet that somewhere in
    > the thousands of pages of paperwork filed by a mega-corporation's
    > attorneys will be a request for the judge not to allow your expert to
    > testify, and/or a request to deem you incompetent to speak on the matter
    > of the definition and role of XML. And since you didn't have a team of
    > legal aids to read through that thousand pages of paperwork and you
    > don't understand legalese anyway, you probably missed that and didn't
    > contest the request by the plaintiff, and the judge ruled in their
    > favor.
    >
    > Furthermore, the jury of "peers" is actually a jury of average Americans
    > who take pride in being "computer illiterate". And since you didn't get
    > to explain the technical situation to them anyway, they will be in their
    > element. They will see the case as: Microsoft says that this guy
    > infringed on their patent by <<technobabble>>. Microsoft clearly has
    > the patent on <<technobabble>>, and this guy clearly did
    > <<technobabble>>. So the case seems pretty obvious.
    >
    > Of course, you're far more likely to win in appeals where the tone will
    > be more intellectual, *if* you possess a lawyer with the skill to make
    > sure the case gets to appeals... and then how much money have you spent
    > so far?
    >
    > Of course, I don't think that we all need to avoid writing software that
    > serializes objects to XML. That's ridiculous, and if you did so, you'd
    > just be infringing one less in your long line of patent infringements.
    > I would be shocked if *any* competent living computer programmer were
    > not guilty of infringing at least a dozen patents that they don't even
    > know about; there's just no way to avoid it. The answer is to hope,
    > pray, and try to see that people are aware of the problem so that it
    > might be fixed in the future.
    >
    > --
    > www.designacourse.com
    > The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.
    >
    > Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    > MindIQ Corporation


    Thanks for your answer first, so you think we don't need to avoid
    serailize object to xml, but if microsoft sue us, you think they will
    win.

    Even i am not american and i am excluded from american law, i think
    american council can stop me to sell our software in usa. The worse
    case is, the council/microsft will charge me something in my country.

    thanks
    from Peter
     
    , Jun 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Peter

    Guest

    then just evil, i know if you have money, you can sue anyone with any
    reason in america, even in hong kong. If in hong kong, although you can
    sue, but you won't win.
    i hope it happen the same in USA
     
    , Jun 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Peter

    Chris Smith Guest

    <> wrote:
    > Thanks for your answer first, so you think we don't need to avoid
    > serailize object to xml, but if microsoft sue us, you think they will
    > win.


    I didn't exactly say that they will win. I did say that it's far from a
    safe assumption that they will lose. I don't know the exact
    probabilities involved. My point is that you are protected more by
    public relations factors than by the legal system. The legal factors
    will side with large corporations over individual developers.

    > Even i am not american and i am excluded from american law, i think
    > american council can stop me to sell our software in usa. The worse
    > case is, the council/microsft will charge me something in my country.


    I don't know anything about this. We're probably reaching the point
    where you should consult an attorney if you need reliable answers.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
     
    Chris Smith, Jun 5, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gordz
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,959
    John Oakes
    Jun 7, 2004
  2. Jignesh
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    654
    Saurabh Aggrawal
    Dec 15, 2004
  3. Volker Grabsch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    748
    Michael Hudson
    Jul 25, 2005
  4. Jayesh Modha

    Xml Serialize Empty object

    Jayesh Modha, Oct 23, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    394
    Jayesh Modha
    Oct 30, 2008
  5. john harkin
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    805
    john harkin
    Sep 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page