DNT false patent claim: Difference between revisions

DNT false patent claim (view source)

Revision as of 21:04, 15 June 2012

1 byte removed , 15 June 2012

→‎Statement of Mozilla on Patent Claim related to Do Not Track

Afowler

Confirmed users

152

edits

Revision as of 20:43, 15 June 2012 (view source) Afowler (talk \| contribs) (Created page with "= Statement of Mozilla on Patent Claim related to Do Not Track = Posted on June 15, 2012<br> This wiki is intended as a repository for discussion and documentation related to th...")		Revision as of 21:04, 15 June 2012 (view source) Afowler (talk \| contribs) (→‎Statement of Mozilla on Patent Claim related to Do Not Track) Newer edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Often patent applicants will take new market and technical developments and amend their pending patent applications to cure the deficiencies in the patent. For this reason, it does not seem prudent to go into detailed non-infringement positions without further assurances from Mr. Cranstone about his pending applications.		Often patent applicants will take new market and technical developments and amend their pending patent applications to cure the deficiencies in the patent. For this reason, it does not seem prudent to go into detailed non-infringement positions without further assurances from Mr. Cranstone about his pending applications.

	If Mr. Cranstone intends to provide a RF license for DNT, we applaud him and remain happy to work with him to find the right ~~forum~~ whether it be a covenant not to sue, statement, or other license structure, but it has to work for everyone and be free of unnecessary representations and conditions.		If Mr. Cranstone intends to provide a RF license for DNT, we applaud him and remain happy to work with him to find the right form whether it be a covenant not to sue, statement, or other license structure, but it has to work for everyone and be free of unnecessary representations and conditions.