<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">I understand that interpretation exists, but I also understand that not everyone agrees with it. Relying on the "use" language leaves it up to interpretation that seems to have generated equally reasonable opinions on either side of the argument which makes it pretty risky to depend on. It may be that a court would agree, it may be that a court would disagree. It may be that it depends on the circumstances around the contribution. This situation seems risky to me, and it seems that being explicit has a lot of value. While it may not be as "potentially" broad, it is clearly specified. I know what I can reasonably count on.<DIV> <BR><DIV> <SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>/Chris.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On May 7, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"> <P><FONT size="2">Christopher D.Coppola wrote:<BR> > Without approval we'd necessarily need to stay<BR> > with ECL 1.0 which negates the benefits of our diligent contribution<BR> > agreement practices and does nothing for patent grants.<BR> <BR> As I mentioned earlier, the word "use" in ECL 1.0 arguably constitutes a<BR> broad patent grant. So from this perspective ECL 2.0 does grant less.<BR> <BR> Matt Flaschen<BR> </FONT> </P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>