4 ms·

Microsoft won't stop .Net on Android

21 points by gspyrou 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago
Of course not. If software gets developed for android phones using .NET, WinMo (or whatever it's called this week) gets software for free. They may consider asking developers license their patented technologies later on.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Not just for free... for free and with Microsoft having the upper hand.
- spoon16 16y ago
  software written, for iOS or Android using Mono definitely would not run on Windows Phone 7. Any generic libraries and business objects that do not use platform specific APIs may be sharable, but that is all.
  - profquail 16y ago
    I'd venture that for a well-written, non-trivial app, most of the code will be in the 'generic libraries and business objects' -- meaning that porting an app to Android or iOS (if you're using MonoTouch) shouldn't be a ton of work.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    It properly won't be enough just to put the binary there, but I do believe you over estimate the cost to porting your software, especially if porting is taken into account before you start to write it.
- profquail 16y ago
  Which patented technologies? The spec you need to write a compliant .NET CLR (e.g., Mono) is an ECMA standard (ECMA-335). For the record, C# is under ECMA-334. Microsoft has also open-sourced some of the newer .NET technologies, like the DLR and ASP.NET MVC (in fact, some of the code has been added to the Mono source trunk). So, there probably will be some technologies that they have patented and won't give away for free, but I don't think (read: hopefully) they won't make the same mistake as Oracle/Sun did. Why? Because it's in Microsoft's best long-term interests to get people using .NET languages, even if they give the technology away for free -- because it gets people to buy copies of Visual Studio (for development) and Windows (to run the software). And that's really how they're going to make their money off of .NET.
  - ratsbane 16y ago
    As far as I know, despite vague and generous public announcements, there is no legally-binding obligation by Microsoft to not do with .Net what Oracle has done with Java in suing for patent infringement. ECMA standards do not require any relevant patents to be provided royalty-free; in fact, they specifically allow "The patent holder is prepared to grant licenses to other parties on a non-discriminatory basis on reasonable terms and conditions." (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm section 2.2) The ECMA-334 & 335 standards you mentioned includes patent statements from Microsoft: "...Microsoft Corporation will grant, on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, licenses on commercially reasonable terms and conditions..." I'm not a lawyer, so if there's something I'm missing please explain.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      Last year MS applied the Community Promise to both of those standards. See: http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-... And let me quote directly from the FAQ: "Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others? A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of _suspension_ clause is common industry practice. " I think Google would have been safe had they used this, rather than Java.
      - ratsbane 16y ago
        You may be right about the Community Promise. There are dissenting views, though (http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono) I'm sure Google's lawyers considered the Java choice safe too. If the Oracle lawsuit is resolved in Google's favor they may yet turn out to have been correct.
davemethvin 16y ago
Correction to headline: Microsoft won't stop Mono on Android. Which should not be surprising at all since they have always said they would not stop Mono.

21 points by gspyrou 16y ago

Of course not. If software gets developed for android phones using .NET, WinMo (or whatever it's called this week) gets software for free. They may consider asking developers license their patented technologies later on.

nanairo 16y ago
Not just for free... for free and with Microsoft having the upper hand.
spoon16 16y ago
software written, for iOS or Android using Mono definitely would not run on Windows Phone 7. Any generic libraries and business objects that do not use platform specific APIs may be sharable, but that is all.
- profquail 16y ago
  I'd venture that for a well-written, non-trivial app, most of the code will be in the 'generic libraries and business objects' -- meaning that porting an app to Android or iOS (if you're using MonoTouch) shouldn't be a ton of work.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  It properly won't be enough just to put the binary there, but I do believe you over estimate the cost to porting your software, especially if porting is taken into account before you start to write it.
profquail 16y ago
Which patented technologies? The spec you need to write a compliant .NET CLR (e.g., Mono) is an ECMA standard (ECMA-335). For the record, C# is under ECMA-334. Microsoft has also open-sourced some of the newer .NET technologies, like the DLR and ASP.NET MVC (in fact, some of the code has been added to the Mono source trunk). So, there probably will be some technologies that they have patented and won't give away for free, but I don't think (read: hopefully) they won't make the same mistake as Oracle/Sun did. Why? Because it's in Microsoft's best long-term interests to get people using .NET languages, even if they give the technology away for free -- because it gets people to buy copies of Visual Studio (for development) and Windows (to run the software). And that's really how they're going to make their money off of .NET.
- ratsbane 16y ago
  As far as I know, despite vague and generous public announcements, there is no legally-binding obligation by Microsoft to not do with .Net what Oracle has done with Java in suing for patent infringement. ECMA standards do not require any relevant patents to be provided royalty-free; in fact, they specifically allow "The patent holder is prepared to grant licenses to other parties on a non-discriminatory basis on reasonable terms and conditions." (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm section 2.2) The ECMA-334 & 335 standards you mentioned includes patent statements from Microsoft: "...Microsoft Corporation will grant, on a non-discriminatory basis, to any party requesting it, licenses on commercially reasonable terms and conditions..." I'm not a lawyer, so if there's something I'm missing please explain.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Last year MS applied the Community Promise to both of those standards. See: http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-... And let me quote directly from the FAQ: "Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others? A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of _suspension_ clause is common industry practice. " I think Google would have been safe had they used this, rather than Java.
    - ratsbane 16y ago
      You may be right about the Community Promise. There are dissenting views, though (http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono) I'm sure Google's lawyers considered the Java choice safe too. If the Oracle lawsuit is resolved in Google's favor they may yet turn out to have been correct.

davemethvin 16y ago

Correction to headline: Microsoft won't stop Mono on Android. Which should not be surprising at all since they have always said they would not stop Mono.