Re: FW: Michael - Patent Infringement Notice

["A. Harry Williams" <Harry () MARIST EDU>]

On 12/8/2011 11:12 AM, Layne Wallace wrote:
> While I hate to 'me too' this thread, Sam makes an excellent point. 
> Since the days of BITNet this list has periodically gone through this 
> discussion. Vendor representatives have provided a positive quality 
> and a unique perspective to many of the discussions. It is a shame 
> that the most recent vendor representative was an exception. Still, to 
> change the culture of the list to account for one exception seems to 
> be a bit extreme.

While I agree that the intrusion by the specific vendor was 
inappropriate, I would also suggest that we ignore his tone, and examine 
the content.  Make sure you have patent defense and indemnification in 
your vendor contracts.   We seem to go through this every couple years 
as vendors get into #$%#@% matches over technology X with us as 
collateral damage.  It's been GIFs, it's been streaming media, it's been 
LMS....

I would also agree that open discussion is worth the very occasional 
intrusions.

/ahw

> Layne
>
> Layne Wallace
> School of Computing
> University of North Florida
> Jacksonville, FL 32224
>
> On 12/8/2011 11:06 AM, Sam Stelfox wrote:
> > I know this can be a rough bit to swallow but this discussions seems to
> > crop up every couple of years and I'd highly recommend everyone to find
> > those threads before we start a new one. It can definitely be less than
> > ideal to leave the lists open, but there are many people that are
> > subscribed to this list legitimately from non-edu addresses.
> >
> > Personally, I think leaving it open so people from other industries can
> > see our discussions is a huge benefit. The people on this list are
> > intelligent, and thoughtful with their responses. These responses are
> > indexed publicly and people with similar problems can see the points and
> > counterpoints with each one.
> >
> > If a vendor violates the sanctity of that discussion, it's not because
> > it's encouraged. More likely than not it was a thoughtless act by a
> > vendor that chose not to read the rules, or if they have, chose not to
> > abide by them. This is a disastrous decision on their part as it will
> > cause them to lose more business than they gain as any respect they may
> > have will be broken.
> >
> > There are also legitimate uses for vendor's being able to see these
> > lists without harassing the members. By understanding what the current
> > concerns and directions different organizations are heading in they can
> > choose to adjust their products and provide better features for us all.
> > This last point is small, and many may argue with it, but I personally
> > consider it valid none-the-less.