<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 02:11 PM 10/9/2004, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> Jeff> If
there is questionable code, that is _not_ a justification<br>
Jeff> to add more.<br><br>
I guess my point was not that the bluetooth stack is somehow<br>
questionable, but rather that the IP policies of a standards bodies<br>
are really not a good reason to keep code out of the kernel.
If<br>
someone can name one patent that the IB driver stack looks like it<br>
might possibly run into, then we would have to take that very<br>
seriously. However, no one has done this here -- all we have is
FUD<br>
or guilt by association or whatever you want to call it.<br><br>
The mere fact that the IBTA bylaws only require members license
their<br>
patents under RAND terms shouldn't be an issue. If nothing else,
the<br>
fact that there are hugely more non-IBTA member companies than
member<br>
companies who might have patents makes the IBTA bylaws almost a
moot<br>
point.</font></blockquote><br>
It isn't a numbers game when it comes to the law. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>For what its worth,
I know of at least five companies shipping IB<br>
stacks and the only patent licensing that I know of is the
Microsoft<br>
SDP license, </font></blockquote><br>
The lack of companies enforcing their patents at this time does not mean
that they will not do so in the future. There are many patents in
the IB specification suite. The question is whether these apply to
the software stack being done within this forum. Until a company
comes forward and states their intention, there is no way to tell.
<br><br>
Not attempting any FUD here as I don't see a reason to stop development
of any of a wide range of technologies that are covered by similar terms
in various industry bodies. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>and even that is
really just CYA: all Microsoft says is<br>
that they _might_ have patents that cover SDP and that they will<br>
license them at no cost to anyone who wants them; unfortunately
this<br>
license is not GPL-compatible, but for proprietary stacks the<br>
zero-cost terms look fine. There are people who have looked
at<br>
Microsoft's patents and concluded that none of them actually apply
to<br>
SDP as specified by the IBTA.</blockquote><br>
The patent office is the only one who can draw a conclusion that can be
relied upon. I'd never rely upon hearsay in making a
decision.<br><br>
<br>
Mike</font></body>
</html>