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

RE: [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:45:12 -0500

That's why one learns to read the contracts 
and keeps a lawyer around to ask. Failure to 
know the law is not a defense against prosecution.

It's after-the-fact compulsion that is scary. 
Those are the explicit reservations that 
translate as "We don't know which of our 
patents may apply to this WG product, but 
if any that we own do, we reserve the right 
to apply them."   And they will.  That we have 
seen and understand, and really, can't object 
to on any grounds other than *bad manners*.  
What must be disallowed is the submarine patent. 
I don't know if it would hold, but I would 
change the language such that bringing up a 
patent late in the game carries a penalty of 
some sort.  RAND is a compromise at best; it 
cannot be allowed to become a means to stall 
disclosure.

Can the W3C survive on royalty-free specifications? 
I don't think so.   Those with patents pending 
simply find other venues.  If the W3C says, 
"fine but not in our house", that house will 
be less well maintained.

Can they provide a policy that ensures RAND now 
and into the future?  Maybe but only insofar as 
they can tie participating parties down with 
airtight contract language.

Is the draft that policy?  
I doubt it.  Just intuition.

But that is what is being asked, it seems.


len

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]


On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 14:22, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> For the scope of authority over that set of 
> contract entities to which the answer can be 
> applied.

Uh, Len... I may be misreading it, but I don't see a "who" there.

"Contract entities" is not especially compelling to those of us who
currently find contracts in this field to be more bondage than blessing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]
> 
> On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 13:54, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > o What is needed?
> > o What is possible?
> > o What is sustainable?
> 
> I'd add a "for who" to the end of all of those questions.
> 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: When to Validate XML Guidelines
• Next by Date: RE: [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
• Previous by thread: RE: [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
• Next by thread: RE: [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread