[M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting

[Rob Koenen]

[Rob]
> > Statements like "I believe there are still patents" without further 
> > qualification will indeed be unhelpful. 

[Olivier]
> I am not sure how statements as "I don't think there are 
> patents" really help as well and give any meaningful level 
> of confidence for a company that want to make a real business 
> out of it. 

This is exactly why we are going to have an open call for 
evidence. If there are no patents, there is not much else 
we can do (except funding a due diligence, which M4IF doesn't
have the resources for).
It is not the "I believe there are (no) patents" statements that
we are after, but the presence or absence of concrete pointers
to IP.
> I would be happy to pay some money to Eric if his *own* 
> perception (very valuable of course) could be instead a 
> commitment to pay the royalties for me if some IP appears on 
> SA at a later point in time.

If I understand this correctly, this is a rethorical statement and 
I am not sure it is helpful. Eric is not an insurance company, and
I don't think any real insurance company would take this on. 
We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe 
to be true: there is no IP on SA. 
To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the
contrary. If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers
will be able to live with a little more comfort. If evidence does
turn up, we will try to get licensing on RAND terms established
by acting in our catalyst capacity.
Best,
Rob