X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D9042087
	for <patents@aful.org>; Thu,  1 May 2003 05:25:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 19B4cl-0002Pa-00; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:20:43 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>
Cc: russell@flora.ca, patents@aful.org, xdrudis@tinet.org,
	seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org
In-reply-to: <20030430184504.A13637@margaux.inria.fr> (message from Bernard
	Lang on Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:45:04 +0200)
Subject: Re: [Patents] Re: IBM, Microsoft, BEA Snub W3C
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
References: <20030423062003.GA424@golem> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304230925470.17425-100000@calcutta3.flora.ca> <20030430184504.A13637@margaux.inria.fr>
Message-Id: <E19B4cl-0002Pa-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:20:43 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

    Wrong answer IMHO

    The isuue is not that IBM applies for patents, or uses them wisely,
    defensively or agressively. The issue is that IBM supports the
    extension of patenting to software, thus enabling players to use them
    agressively (even if IBM does not).

Yes, that's it exactly.  Even if IBM holds back from crushing us with
patents (which is not certain), we can hardly expect all patent
holders to be so kind.

