🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D2uJ79.Bs6@hkuxb.hku.hk>, h9210876@hkuxa.hku.hk (Lee Sau Dan
~{@nJX6X~}) wrote:

> >>    My major beef with Unisys here is that when LZW was first patented,
> >> a sort of "verbal license" was given by them stating publicly that 
> >> they would never attempt to enforce the patent against "software only"
> >> uses. I'd have to say that the current reversal probably will never
> >> stand up, given that the so-called enfringining programs have existed
> >> for nearly as long as the patent, with Unisys' tacit and public consent.
> 
> Well... in HK, a verbal promise is legally binding, like a written contract.
> The difficulty lies in establishing the evidence for such a promise.

From what I have seen, the so-called "verbal license" only meant that
Unisys wasn't going to get it's shorts in an uproar about Unix compress.
My *personal* feeling is that this "verbal license" for compress had alot
more to do with AT&T being one of their biggest customers than anything
else. I've never seen any reference to any policy for anything other than
compress, but would be real interested in finding one if it existed. 

I know that Unisys was licensing and enforcing patent rights as long as
five years ago, since I personally discussed licensing with them at that
time. As I've stated before, it could be that "well sure we'll charge you"
is the answer when anyone calls, but they did have a license policy at
that point.

-- 
--------- Keith Stone                   | Voice: (910) 777-0511 
|\\\ ///| Crewstone Consulting ltd.     | FAX:   (910) 777-1191
|/// \\\| 1001 South Marshall Suite 118 | "Beware of geeks bearing
--------- Winston-Salem, NC 27101       |  GIFs"