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

RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)

• From: Don Park <donpark@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 02:39:19 -0700

> > At 02:03 AM 10/6/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:
>
> > How long do you think it takes to do a thorough examination of an IP
> > portfolio with tens of thousands of items in it, to be able to
> declare with
> > any kind of competence that there is no conflict that needs to
> be declared?

Words above were written by Ann Navarro, not me.  Frankly, I fail to see why
Ann is making these pointless arguments.  So IBM has tens of thousands of
land mines all over the tecnological landscape and is planting more as we
speak, yet IBM can't keep track of them?

Patents mean protection to patent holders, but they are like land mines to
others.  If IBM can't keep track of their patents, we have even less chance
of knowing where the mines are hidden.  Standards produced by organizations
like W3C, IETF, and OASIS are important, not only for standardization, but
also because they are the only known safe passage thru the landscape
littered with buried IP mines.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse

• 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: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• 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: 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