Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 02:25 PM 10/5/2001 -0700, PaulT wrote: > > >1) do their best to ensure against patent fringement in our specs > > >2) disclose patents affecting any W3C activities or forfeit profit from >them > > >3) will challenge legally any patent disputes that may arise after > > >recommendation > > >4) will deprecate recommendations if patent challenge fails > > > > > >I think such a policy will provide reasonable level of protection against > > >patents in standards. > > > > Unfortunately, that's really what they have now, and it clearly hasn't >worked. > >If it *clearly* hasn't worked, may I ask for some example? Nearly every patent claim faced by the W3C. Let's consider: CSS -- Microsoft participated in the WG - then later claimed "oh, we did that years ago, we own the patent". Their AC rep claimed no knowledge of prior claims/property -- did his "best" to disclose. XPointer - Sun -- "we helped create this, heck, even were primary driving force in the WG, and "oops", we have a patent on it". Ad nauseum. Ann Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc. http://www.webgeek.com/ What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hooya waling waling wi tiyil!
|
