Subject: Re: About Microsoft Patent From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 23:20:24 -0600 |
Didier PH Martin wrote: > > Yep, this has, for sure implications to XSL with FO not as XSL as a > transformation language which is not covered by the patent. I guess this add > more weight to the actual thread about splitting XSL from the formatting > object stuff. I refuse to get my nighty in a knot about an unsupportable patent. Just because the monkeys in the patent office will approve anything doesn't mean that a judge will back them. Microsoft would also look pretty silly defending such a stupid pattent -- and losing. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
About Microsoft Patent, Didier PH Martin | Thread | Re: About Microsoft Patent, Tyler Baker |
Re: Venting 2, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: Accessing XSL context - Was: RE, Paul Prescod |
Month |