Re: Comparison of Java, C# for development on Windows and future for them

From: Ingo Pakleppa <ingo-immigration_at_kkeane.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 05:13:07 GMT
Message-ID: <D7KY9.17081$LA4.1494773@news1.west.cox.net>

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:32:17 +0000, Chad Myers wrote:

>> > The specs are specs and cannot change easily. MS can ignore them, but
>> > as the ECMA-compliant crowd grows, MS would shoot themselves in

> the

>> > foot. They have said they will continue to work within the ECMA and
>> > any new changes will be submitted and so far this has been the case
>> > and there's not a strong reason to believe it will stop anytime

> soon.

>>
>> Optimist ;-)

>
> Not really since MS have done everything to help Mono and support the
> standards and have shown no sign of intent otherwise. MS is no ALL evil.

I don't see this as a "good" vs. "evil" thing in the first place. Microsoft pursues their own interest. That is generally legit (although it can be not legit in the case of a monopoly). It wouldn't be the first time that they first helped some technology, and then went their own way and left it to die (remember how Microsoft and IBM parted ways?)

>> >> Second, there are patent and copyright issues in .NET and C# that
>> > would
>> >> allow Microsoft to pretty much at any time they like stop the work
>> > dead in
>> >> its tracks (there are similar issues surrounding Samba, btw).
>> >
>> > Not quite. SMB is different, it's not an ECMA or ISO standard like

> C#

>> > and CLI.
>>
>> Actually, SMB is an RFC (RFC 2708). More importantly, there are many

> instances of

>> patented technologies being submitted for standardization. There

> recently

>> was some uproar about Rambus trying to do that in the memory chip

> arena.
>
> The problem with SMB, IIRC, is that MS' implementations in the past
> didn't
> comply fully with the RFC. I think the newer versions do, but have
> extended
> features (like NTLM and such). Again, it's not quite the same thing.

I haven't really looked at the details, but I remember that the Samba team did have some legal issues.

> Either
> way, I don't recall seeing MS suing anyone for SMB implementations, even
> though there are many (not just Samba). HP, Compaq, and many other
> companies
> have portal storage devices like hard drives with network cards,
> essentially,
> that support SMB (they don't call it "Windows Networking", they call it
> SMB usually and that's an important distinction).

I had to read up on what the issue was. See http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1001-904017.html - the problem was that Microsoft put a licensing restriction on CIFS that generally grants a royalty-free license to certain Microsoft patents, as long as it does not end up with a GPL-style license.

That after having supported Samba for years.

>> > If Mono attempted to sell their product, then there might be an
>> > issue, but I'm not sure.
>>
>> Patent law is more strict. Even if Mono was only used by Ximian

> itself, it

>> would still be a patent violation unless they purchase a license (or

> prove

>> that Ximian had developed and used the technology before Microsoft

> filed

>> the patent claim).
>>
>> Obviously, Mono is more ambitious and would be distributed to the

> public -

>> it doesn't matter whether it is sold or given away free of charge.

>
> Seeing as how MS have been providing help and information to Mono, I
> find
> it hard to believe that MS would turn around and slap them with a patent
> suit. Not only that, but IIRC, trademarks and patents must be defended,
> otherwise when a "real" infringment comes along, the court will
> recognize
> that MS would selectively enforce their patents which is not acceptable.

Trademarks must be defended that way, but patents don't have to.

> I would guess that MS has pretty good legal council, so I must assume
> they know they're doing. I believe that by supporting Mono, they're
> making a strategic decision about the future of .NET.

Exactly. They want as many people as possible to use .NET. Once everybody and his brother uses .NET, they no longer need Mono. That's the concern I would have. Received on Sat Jan 25 2003 - 23:13:07 CST