• From: PaulT <pault12@p...>
• To: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>, Don Park <donpark@d...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 14:25:01 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Navarro" <ann@w...>


> At 12:09 PM 10/5/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:
>
> >Assuming I have your vote for Lord High Dictator of the W3C position <g>,
I
> >propose that W3C adopt a patent policy that basically states "W3C and all
of
> >its members will:
> >
> >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?

What are *partuclar* problems that  W3C has,  bulding
the web on open source stuff,  playing by these principles?

Rgds.Paul.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RAND issues
• Next by Date: RE: RAND issues
• 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