XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: voodoo@tootycar.net   
      
   On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:23:24 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:   
      
   > "voodoo"  wrote in message   
   > news:4d9d339f$0$15313$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com...   
   >> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:51:01 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> "voodoo"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:4d9bc35b$0$4180$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com...   
   >>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:11:07 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "voodoo"  wrote in message   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> you should ask a friend in the business about that patent stuff. i   
   >>>>>> heard that the patent protection only went as far as following the   
   >>>>>> exact released spec. anything in the annexes and supplements, the   
   >>>>>> "do it like word95" stuff was _not_ covered.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I have not seen where any Microsoft patent has been asserted in   
   >>>>> regard to this.  Have you?  I am sure that it would be a big news   
   >>>>> item if it were to occur.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "asserted" no. not yet anyway. yes that would be big news. "claimed"   
   >>>> certainly. makes a smaller splash. of course the prospect of a   
   >>>> competing word processor that can do msxml taking a substantial slice   
   >>>> of microsofts profits would bring out the lawyers, as has happened   
   >>>> with andriod.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Oh don't be so naïve, voodoo!  Consider how many years OO has been   
   >>> around and fully capable of reading and writing Word files as well as   
   >>> costing nothing and offering complete services to both Windows and   
   >>> Linux users. AFAIK, maybe it even works on Macintosh.  Even so, it has   
   >>> taken no measurable business from Microsoft and MS Office continues to   
   >>> be a huge hit for Microsoft as well as a great money maker.  You   
   >>> people need to get your act together and compare notes!   
   >>   
   >> ??? i have not claimed that OO had taken measurable business from   
   >> microsoft. if it had, there is no doubt that legal papers would already   
   >> be flying.   
   >>   
   > I must apologize, voodoo, I confused your post with snit's above.  Sorry   
   > about that.   
   >   
   > As I stated there, though, you have a very remote possibility that such   
   > a thing could ever come to be, since after almost two decades, the best   
   > effort put forth by the cloners falls woefully short of the mark.   
   > Suggesting that this would change overnight and prompt Microsoft to   
   > renege on their promise not to sue is as unlikely as it is unsupported.   
   >   
   > Microsoft suing anyone after publicly stating that they would not is not   
   > going to happen.   
      
   i must have been sleeping the day microsoft said that. do you have a   
   link? after all, microsoft bought whole countries to vote the party line   
   in iso, so nothing they just hint at can be trusted. Homer pointed out   
   the sflc warning about their open specification promise, which was gone   
   over by lawyers. who can back up your position?   
      
   are there lawyery weasel words in the promise that make any assurances   
   meaningless? Homer quoted this from the promise page that he linked to:   
   "necessary to implement the required portions". if a program does some   
   small extra thing, like show the current date/time in the margins, or you   
   know, do some value add stuff that microsoft itself loves so much to   
   do ... does that invalidate the safety of the promise?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)