From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261409AbVFAPA4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:00:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261405AbVFAO7q (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:59:46 -0400 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]:49542 "EHLO zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261407AbVFAO7b (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 10:59:31 -0400 Message-ID: <429DCCB2.3060802@nortel.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:56:50 -0600 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Arcangeli CC: Ingo Molnar , Paulo Marques , "Paul E. McKenney" , Esben Nielsen , James Bruce , Nick Piggin , "Bill Huey (hui)" , Andi Kleen , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance References: <20050531143051.GL5413@g5.random> <20050531161157.GQ5413@g5.random> <20050531183627.GA1880@us.ibm.com> <20050531204544.GU5413@g5.random> <429DA7AE.5000304@grupopie.com> <20050601135154.GF5413@g5.random> <20050601141919.GA9282@elte.hu> <20050601143202.GI5413@g5.random> <20050601144612.GJ5413@g5.random> In-Reply-To: <20050601144612.GJ5413@g5.random> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=12&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5,995,745&OS=5,995,745&RS=5,995,745 I'm not a lawyer, but claim 1 in that document specifically talks about having an RTOS that runs a general purpose OS. Does that limit the rest of the claims to only apply in the context of that scenario? In the case of preempt-RT there is only the one OS involved, so if the claims are limited to the case where the general OS runs on top of an RTOS, it would seem that the patent does not apply. Chris