Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
 Good catch, Benjamin. I should have said "only demanding other's property for free". I repeat: RF should be preferred except in extreme cases. Non-RF is an option and requires rigorous scrutinized process to exercise. The examples we have seen so far show that unless this is done, we may get undeserved but approved patents (Sun and XPointer) and or undeserved and unapproved patents (PICS). The costs of this for the W3C are large, so yes, a company must disclose and set RAND terms or it exhaust the W3C and no one gains from that. Whether or not punitive action can follow a failure to disclose would be tested in the courts. Again, an exhaution problem. The terms of the RAND policy are an issue of flexibility. The USPTO is the US's problem unless the W3C chooses to make it the worlds' through using patented technology in a standard. There are definitely issues that can be characterized as abuse by individuals and organizations but that is something the W3C cannot change. It can only provide policy to its members. Better one that is mature than one that is flakey. The issue is terms of the policy. Meanwhile, all of the spec and standards work are under the stress of uncertainty and that leads to paralysis. This is true of any organization without a patent policy. len -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Franz [mailto:snowhare@n...] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:08 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Patents do not extort. They are licensed. You are > demanding other's property for free if the W3C > harvests it. Otherwise, there is no issue here. No. RF demands that W3C member companies must license the relevant patents for free if they wish W3C to use the technology they (the company) patented as the base for a W3C standard ('scuse me: 'recommendation'). My draconian version of a contract also would say that it is the W3C member organizations obligation to identify and make known such patent issues from their portfolios (if it is too onerous for _the company that obtained the patent_ to identify said conflicts, how in the world is anyone _else_ supposed to identify them? Particularly if said patent is only _applied_ for and hence not yet public?) Patents as currently issued by the USPTO _are_ being used as a form of legalized extortion: cf. Amazon and 'one click' ordering and its use as a blunt instrument against Barnes & Noble's online effort. The USPTO has long since become a rubber stamp on patents. There is honest-to-god a patent from the USPTO on using a laser pointer as a cat toy. http://www.legamedia.net/lochlex/2001/01-03/0103_lenger_gustav_cat-exercise. php Pay no attention to sections 102 and 103 of US Title 35, Part II, Chapter 10 regarding what is patentable. After all - the USPTO doesn't. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/102.text.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/103.text.html 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
