In message  David Hanzel writes:
> Between us, if freeware authors make some effort to see to it that their
> software is only used on licensed hardware we would all be very happy.  If
> freeware authors actively contribute to a patent infringement we will all be
> unhappy.
 
David--
 
Thanks for your help in clarifying these points--the "informal" information that
you provided is in many ways more helpful than that provided by the lawyer in
the Official Response.  For the moment I'd like to ignore the legal questions of
whether the patent is valid and of whether the freeware that I hope to provide
would infringe upon it.  How would a freeware author--especially one who's goal
is to provide not only a binary but also the source code as a tool for others to
employ, modify, and expand upon--know whether or not his tool is going to be
used on licensed hardware?  In MD's mind, what constitutes licensed hardware?
Finally, can you give me an example of how you would imagine a freeware author
"actively contributing to a patent infringement"?  The answers to these
questions would be very helpful with regard to my original question.
 
> 3.   Guy Cox (and others) say "I bet that Molecular Dynamics would lose a
> court battle."  Well Guy you have a bet, a beer, a dollar, an SGI you choose.
> In EVERY legal challenge to the patent Molecular Dynamics has prevailed.  Any
> legal council that advised you or others that "the patent could not stand up
> in court" is probably worth what you paid them.
 
Getting back to the question of the validity of the patent--isn't it true that
Zeiss successfully challenged the patent in the European Union?  And that the
agreement with Meridian was reached out-of-court, not as the result of a court
decision?  I'm unclear about what challenges the patent has actually weathered
in court.
 
Thanks for your time and for the information.
 
Also, regarding Chip Montrose's comments:
> I think it is time for the confocal list group to get the University
> lawyers involved: otherwise we are just whistling in the breeze and will
> start wasting time on the listserve.
 
I contacted my university's lawyers before I ever posted the original message;
unfortunately I haven't heard anything (other than questions) from them.  I
expect that to make a decision, they need more information.  My intent was to
try to gather more information by the means that I have available.  Dave
Hanzel's response was interesting and I hope he can continue to flesh out MD's
position.  This could be done outside of the list, but based on the amount of
non-public mail that I've received on the subject, I'd guess that it's still
worth discussing publicly if any further information is forthcoming.  Being one
to drive discussions into the ground, though,  I may be the wrong person to make
that decision!
 
Martin Wessendorf PhD, Asst Professor                [log in to unmask]
Dept Cell Biology and Neuroanatomy                      (612) 624 2991 (voice)
Confocal Microscopy Facility                              (612) 624 8118 (FAX)
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN  55455