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

RE: More patent funnies!

• From: Wayne Steele <xmlmaster@h...>
• To: clbullar@i..., xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:08:09 -0700

When I first started following this thread, I thought Len was being naive 
about software patents, or just looking for a good argument.

But I've come to think he's actually right about this: "RF Only" is perhaps 
too inflexible for the real world. "RAND" is (at least around these parts) 
intolerable.

I would like to see discussion about when it's acceptable for patents to 
intersect with W3C work, what is an acceptable resolution in these cases, 
and who decides?

"RAND" means "Lets talk about patents later, and I promise we won't single 
you out to get screwed".

I think most of us agree that more talking about patents as soon as the 
issue comes up is a good thing, not a bad one.

As Len put it, "broad exhaustive review".

Maybe there is some rare case where a patent on software technology really 
is a reasonable reward for a brilliant and useful invention. How do we draw 
the lines so we can tell (Hint: not by accepting the USPTO actions as final 
or even informed) ?


-Wayne Steele


>From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
...
>The issue is the RF or non-RF terms.   What can be
>done effectively is have a policy for disclosure,
>broad exhaustive review, membership choice and
>negotiated terms.
...

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: More patent funnies!
    • From: David Lyon <david@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML for Video, Pizza Shops & TakeOut
• Next by Date: Re: Perl XML::Parser and nested external entity references
• Previous by thread: RE: More patent funnies!
• Next by thread: Re: More patent funnies!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread