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

RE: RAND issues

• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 12:09:04 -0700

At 01:35 PM 05/10/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>So one can assume that when a technology for which 
>Oracle holds patents comes up for standardization, 
>Oracle will (pick one)
>1.  Give up rights to royalties from its competitors, or
>2.  Ensure that WG is never approved

These are both reasonable outcomes.  Oracle might well 
bet that the upside and vitality from the continued growth 
of the web infrastructure - in some part due to the 
undisciplined efforts of the Open Source gang - is a better 
business bet than whatever they could squeeze out of the 
patent rights.

Alternatively, if they don't, Oracle and W3C should agree
that this is not an appropriate technology for W3C to work
on.  Take it to ISO or ECMA or someone else, there's no
shortage of organizations out there.  Or charter a WG to
figure out a way to achieve the same effect without 
IP encumbrance.  As Larry Wall says, "There's more than
one way to do it."

The *unacceptable* outcome is that there is eventually
a piece of infrastructure with the W3C imprimatur that you 
have to pay toll to Oracle to use.  -Tim

• References:
  • RE: RAND issues
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

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