Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Cutting special deals for open source developers --noway!
 That is in fact, the climate you do work in. Patents have been applied for and granted. In general, the W3C has been specifying technologies that are for the most part based on work done previously in government groups, universities etc and some of these are patented. The MIT suits are an example. None of this is new or remarkable. Standards developers have had to be aware of this situation and for that reason, there is a formal policy for such in standards bodies. This is normal. It is possible that your company does have a policy with regards to patentable concepts and that you are violating them unaware of the potential consequences. That is something you may want to look into. The claims of a norm for freely giving away company assets to engender company profits is to put it mildly, extraordinary. Commerce One just laid off almost half of its work force. Did freely implementable ideas help that to happen or prevent it? Was it a factor at all? Economists can argue the case, but a business model that does account for all of its revenue sources is more likely to be taken seriously by investors and customers. Web companies are becoming aware of this fundamental in which a patent portfolio is part of the equation of investment and return on investment. For this reason, despite all claims that some norm exists or is being violated, the W3C patent policy will move forward and those that need or wish to work on W3C specifications will do so under the formal norms set by that policy instead of the informal norms which they assume exist but in fact may be nothing more than a chimera produced by unsound investments the consequences of which are now being realized in quite predictable ways. This is why special deals for open source developers are unwise. It suggests that the value of assets can be applied in ways counter to their intent which is to exact licensing fees. Fair for all or none. len -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@s...] I spend a lot of my life working on W3C Working Groups, giving away ideas that may well be patentable. As long as the standards we are working on are freely implementable, it is easy for my employer to understand that it is in our interest to pay me to work full time giving away ideas, because everyone else on the committees is doing the same thing, so we benefit from their generosity, and they benefit from ours. Note: I am not speaking for my current employer, but in general terms. Now suppose everyone is patenting ideas that are needed to be able to implement the standards we develop. If I come up with a potentially patentable idea, how do I explain to my employer that I should make it publicly available, when everyone else is patenting their ideas instead of making them available to us for our implementation? In fact, I may need to have some patented ideas to be able to trade with the other companies so that I can use all the technology I need to implement a standard we are working to develop together. It gets worse, of course. I have to be careful not to communicate anything that might give away my potentially patentable ideas until I know they are protected, so I have to keep lots of secrets instead of being open with my colleagues. This is certainly not the climate I want to work in while developing standards. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
