microsft get the license : object serialize to xml

[Peter]

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 ([email protected])

 

[Mark Preston]

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.

 

[Chris Smith]

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 Uppal]

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

 

[.]

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.

 

[Joona I Palaste]

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.

 

[Chris Smith]

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

 

[Andrew Thompson]

"..a machine that adds things.."

*SHHhhhh* Joona. You might give Microsoft (still more) 'ideas'.

 

[Ivan Villanueva]

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

 

[cmk128]

Chris Smith 寫é“：

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

 

[cmk128]

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

 

[Chris Smith]

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