• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: jim@a..., Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 16:35:21 -0400

At 12:07 PM 10/5/2001 -0700, Jim Ancona wrote:
>--- Ann Navarro <ann@w...> wrote:
> > At 08:53 AM 10/5/2001 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
> >
> > >Draconian, sure. But it does the right thing by shifting the burden from
> > >everyone else in the world to find out that concept Y has been patented
> > >to the holder of the patent to _make known_ that they hold a patent on Y.
><snip/>
> > Draconian contract wording looks good, but violations are likely to be
> > commonplace despite it.
>
>But with Benjamin's wording, that wouldn't matter. If the company 
>inadvertently
>fails to disclose, fine, they just granted the world a free license to use the
>patent to implement the recommendation.

And the first time someone tries to claim an "instant free license", watch 
the law suits fly -- nothing is that simple.

Ann

Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hooya waling waling wi tiyil!

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>

• References:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Next by Date: The Long and Winding Road
• Previous by thread: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Next by thread: RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread