On TechRepublic: 10 lame phrases to cut from your resume
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 13 of 53:
Next »
« Previous
Please get your facts right
This article is little more than flamebait as it stands now. I don't believe it was your intention, but this topic deserves some more accuracy.

The issue is not C#. C# has been standardized through Ecma and as part of that standards process Microsoft and partners had to declare that any patents they may hold on the technology behind C#, Common Language Runtime(CLR) and Common Type System(CTS) be made available to any implementor on a fair an non-discriminatory base.

Microsofts deal with Novell has basically set the standard: Free. As Novell gets the patent licenses for free, any implementor of C#, CLR and/or CTS would be discriminated against if they had to pay.

C# (the language) is in this respect much more open than Java. Java has open source implementations, but the all-important specification is still fully under Suns (and soon Oracles) control. As benevolent dictators Sun has for many years followed a semi-open path by relinquishing some control to the Java Community Process (JCP). But Sun was *always* at the end of the table and always reserve their right to veto or just forge ahead without the JCP. Like they did with JavaFX.

C# cannot be changed by Microsoft alone anymore. They have to get amendments through the same Ecma/ISO channel. Of course, MS has a big saying in these matters, but even so, factually, this process protects against any patent litigation from Microsoft with respect to C#, CLR and CTS implementations.

Now, Mono is not just C#. The Mono project also has clean-room implementations of large/most parts of the .NET Framework. Some of this Framework is also covered by the standards process patent protection, while other parts such as Windows Forms and ASP.NET are not.

The FUD about the potential Microsoft patent litigation actually centers around these parts. The fear is that even while Mono does a clean room implementation that may still violate some patent within their implementation.

Microsoft certainly holds many patents, and some code you write may indeed violate a Microsoft patent (where valid) or someone elses patents. What is unclear is how Mono code somehow is more prone to such infringement than other code, say Java Runtime implementations.

You (nor Microsoft) can not patent an API. Only implementations can be patented in some jurisdictions (you can only patent how a machine *work*, not what it *does*).

The .NET API does not mandate a specific implementation. Yes, Mono code may violate some patents, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Apple, Rambus etc. So may any other code. To suggest that Mono code is more likely to infringe is disingenious. Simply FUD.

Indeed, Microsoft has covered Moonlight by their Novell covenant. Moonlight (part of the Mono project) is guaranteed free from Microsoft litigation. And Microsoft has gone beyond that and offered users of Moonlight free access to Microsoft licensed (not owned by Microsoft) codecs. They could do that because anyone who downloads the codec from Microsoft are covered by Microsofts license with the IP owners.

So, please. This is not about C#. It is just a programming language, and it is guaranteed free from MS litigation, per the terms agreed to by Microsoft as a prerequisite to standardize C#.

Some believe that there is an issue with Monos reimplementation of the .NET Framework. However, it is hard to see how Mono code should be any more at risk than anything else.
Posted by: honeymonster   Posted on: 06/30/09  (Edited: 06/30/2009 @ 08:45) You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Is this any different than Java?  happyharry_z | 06/30/09
Its quite different from Java.  storm14k | 06/30/09
Tired of political agendas  croberts | 06/30/09
Either a good act...  storm14k | 06/30/09
Apple has  mdemuth | 06/30/09
Then why don't they spread it?  storm14k | 06/30/09
Did they "really stuck with them"?  Richard Flude | 06/30/09
So, Apple's lean times were MS's fault somehow Richard?  xuniL_z | 06/30/09
Read what I said  Richard Flude | 07/01/09
I did Richard. You are still a very one sided thinker.  xuniL_z | 07/02/09
RE: Will Stallman C# warning fall flat?  someitguy79 | 06/30/09
RE: Will Stallman C# warning fall flat?  Icozinha | 06/30/09
Please get your facts right  honeymonster | 06/30/09
Whilst I mainly agree with you...  nick.holmes | 06/30/09
Except for one thing...  zkiwi | 06/30/09
Java has NOT been OSS'ed. Please catch up!  honeymonster | 06/30/09
As you said in your other post...  storm14k | 06/30/09
"More people want to see native code than anything"  xuniL_z | 06/30/09
Java will become legacy  onepersonsopinion@... | 06/30/09
@honeymonster. Nice post. You left him utterly speechless. NT  xuniL_z | 07/03/09
 xuniL_z | 07/06/09
The problem is...  storm14k | 06/30/09
RE: Will Stallman C# warning fall flat?  Icozinha | 06/30/09
ISO, Ecma and GPL  honeymonster | 06/30/09
Oh right, surrender to ISO and ECMA.  Icozinha | 06/30/09
Everyone saw the "bribery" charges coming the minute the ISO..  xuniL_z | 07/01/09
Mission accomplished  jackbond | 06/30/09
What?  Icozinha | 06/30/09
Answer the questions  jackbond | 06/30/09
Stupid  Icozinha | 06/30/09
It's simple...  jackbond | 06/30/09
Stupid again  Icozinha | 06/30/09
youve got a point  onepersonsopinion@... | 06/30/09
you really got a point!  Icozinha | 06/30/09
"Bing? Come on, m$ boy..." really?  xuniL_z | 06/30/09
Dana, I get tired of reading your flame bait.  balsover | 06/30/09
MS = antitrust  T1Oracle | 06/30/09
So, you still feel that way about IBM as well?  xuniL_z | 06/30/09
Why do they have a picture of a fat neanderthal on this blog??  xuniL_z | 06/30/09
Found him !!!  Aussie_Troll | 06/30/09
lol. I think that's him. (nt)  xuniL_z | 07/01/09
Another Take On Microsoft!  preachjohn | 06/30/09
Whatever  bmonsterman | 07/01/09
preachjohn. I must respond.  xuniL_z | 07/01/09
I give up! What's ABM mean?  preachjohn | 07/01/09
Anything But Microsoft (ABM)  rapson | 07/01/09
I'm obviously not an ABMer! Ah Whatever!  preachjohn | 07/01/09
I'm trying to believe you, but one fact remains.  xuniL_z | 07/01/09
I just calls'em as I sees'em  bmonsterman | 07/02/09
Zdnet posts suck  jackbond | 07/01/09
RE: Will Stallman C# warning fall flat?  ITsupportGuy | 07/02/09
RE: Will Stallman C# warning fall flat?  mheartwood | 07/03/09
RE: Will Stallman C# warning fall flat?  nachokb | 07/08/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here