| By Derek Ferguson | Article Rating: |
|
| March 27, 2003 12:00 AM EST | Reads: |
11,125 |
Everyone knows I love Microsoft. And as hard as it may be to believe, in the whole world, there is only one little thing that rubs me the wrong way about our friends in Redmond.
It is, in some ways, a very minor thing. In others, it cuts right to the quick of what .NET is all about. In short, I suspect that Microsoft's patent (CLICK HERE!) on .NET will ultimately be used to prevent the implementation of fully CLR-compatible CLIs on other platforms.
What this means is that current efforts such as Mono and Portable .NET may be at least partially illegal because Microsoft has standardized only a portion of the Frameworks classes and technology available under the CLR on Windows.
The bits that Microsoft has not standardized are not trivial little bits of the platform that sit off in a corner, unused. They include:
- System.Windows.Forms
- System.Data
- System.Web.Forms
- System.Web.Services
The exact legal status of these APIs has been debated for quite some time. I believe, however, that Microsoft's own Dr. James Miller (program manager for the Microsoft Common Language Runtime and one of the principal inventors of .NET) recently cut through all of the confusion during a discussion on the academic Shared Source CLI discussion list (dotnet-sscli@di.unipi.it).
It began when Giuseppe Attardi posted to the list, saying he was concerned that Microsoft's recent patent application would hurt research and standardization. Surprisingly, Dr. Miller responded that Microsoft and its partners are making the bits of the .NET patent that have been standardized available "royalty-free and otherwise RAND (reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms)."
Sensing an opportunity to resolve the question once and for all, I leapt in. "What about the nonstandardized APIs, such as System.Windows. Forms, for example," I asked? Here is his response (slightly abridged):
Microsoft has a commercial product, the CLR, and we treat it as we do any commercial product. It is covered by patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, whatever the lawyers dream up next. Then there's a standardization effort that covers a specific pair of technologies, whose scope is stated and agreed on by the appropriate standards organization. What's standardized is clearly stated in the standard itself. If it's standardized, you know the rules. If it's not standardized, you know the rules. What's unclear?
I guess what is unclear is that Microsoft continues to claim it supports Mono despite Dr. Miller's comments that strongly suggest that portions of both Mono and Portable.NET are in violation of their patents! Could it be that Microsoft sees it to be in some way advantageous to have people think .NET is a standard along the lines of J2EE, perhaps without having to go down that particular road for real?
Rhys Weatherley, founder of the Portable.NET project and to my mind a true visionary, offered up a clarification on the list for Dr. Miller. He suggested that, because some of the Windows APIs upon which the .NET APIs are based have existed for many years without patents the enforceability of the patents Microsoft now claims could be legally questionable.
Dr. Miller did not reply.
Published March 27, 2003 Reads 11,125
Copyright © 2003 Ulitzer, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.
More Stories By Derek Ferguson
Derek Ferguson, founding editor and editor-in-chief of .Net Developer's Journal, is a noted technology expert and former Microsoft MVP.
![]() |
Paul 04/16/03 02:45:00 AM EDT | |||
MS does this all the time but this time i believe there are soon going to be legitimate bypasses, such as Borlands forth comming Sidewinder, it has its own set of Forms APIs, you can program with this and bypass the windows.forms API, hopefully Borland commit to making this available to Mono and others, I think its time we started ensuring MS doesnt tie us into anything we as companies/developers dont want to be tied into and start using alternatives where MS doesnt standardise, let reduce vendor dependency and use products like Sidewinder and others starting to come out. |
||||
![]() |
Bob H 04/15/03 09:06:00 PM EDT | |||
Why should this stance be a surprise to anyone? If you look at Microsoft's track record this is what they do. They do not embrace and extend for the end user they do it for control. I do not hate Microsoft by any means but I like to think at least I am realistic about what they are as a company and how they play the game. |
||||
- .NET Archives: Getting Reacquainted with the Father of C#
- i-Technology Viewpoint: "SOA Sucks"
- Exclusive .NET Developer's Journal "Indigo" Interview with Microsoft's Don Box
- An Exclusive Interview With Rocky Lhotka, the Creator of CSLA
- Windows Mobile Version 5.0 Revealed
- Linux - Mono - .NET: An Exclusive SYS-CON.TV Interview With Miguel de Icaza
- Outsourcing Viewpoint: The Future of Our Profession
- Corporate Dalliance
- Exclusive .NETDJ Interview with Brad Abrams: Talking Frameworks, Namespaces, and Programming
- Product Review: RadView's WebLOAD
- How Well Does Work-At-Home Work?
- Parasoft's SOAtest 3.0






















Ulitzer content is offered under Creative Commons "Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives" License.
For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get written permission from Ulitzer, Inc., the copyright holder.
Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.