[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>, Daniel.Veillard@i...
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:30:09 -0600

Yes and no.  I have to waffle here because groups such 
as MPEG make no secret of the fact they are influencing 
standards and including patent pools.   This does happen. 
I don't like it but it does.  Sometimes to keep a 
standard in forward motion, one accepts that the common 
technology is a patented one.

In this particular case, the claim is fairly absurd on the
surface.  Given that Eve is not absurd, I guess there are 
subsurface properties of which we are not aware.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


From: Ann Navarro [mailto:ann@w...]

The W3C has made calls for prior art to fight patent assertions in the 
past, I wouldn't expect that policy to change. With all respect to Eve, 
Sun's "offer" for the licensing is inappropriate in an consortium-based 
standards body, and should not attempt to force submissions of what 
otherwise could be true IP of other companies into the open-source space.

I would certainly lobby for a rejection of any document containing such a 
clause.

• Prev by Date: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by Date: Of the XPointer Patent [was Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0]>
• Previous by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by thread: RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread