[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
You are right as far as I know that someone has to contest the patent. I just found it odd that as was asserted, the W3C issues a spec contingent on some license agreement if a member shows the patent. I may not understand what the W3C action is here. There is certainly prior art and I believe it possible to force Sun to acknowledge that given that it had access to published materials even if it cannot be proven they indeed accessed them. I do remember some sort of mail asking about this issue before and responding that checking the US Army and Unisys work would show that Unisys applied the technique early in the nineties, well before the Sun patent. Since Eve was a member of the SGML community at that time, she should have been aware of such work and made that known to Sun's attorneys. If not in either case, still no difference. The work exists and was publicized. Frankly, it may be a case as Trafford says where the industry ignores the patent rather than going to the trouble and expense of contesting it. The W3C may not be able to ignore it. The result is the same: XPointer is DOA. The next problem would be, can everyone live with ignoring XPointer or Sun or both? I guess I am mystified that something this basic could have been allowed for so long. Why has the W3C not made more trouble for Sun on this one? It isn't a resource issue as the same resource (the Internet community) is available to them when they need help on a fundamental such as this one. We haven't run out of torches and pitchforks out here although we don't like to burn down yet another windmill just to get rid of some mad scientist's egoMonster hiding inside. I have a friend in the patent office. He tells me the same thing: no resources, too much complexity, not enough smarts on the subject matter, so they have adopted a policy of "issue and see who hollers" sort of like the "release and let the customer test" policy of software companies. We can't beat them up too badly for the same "devil takes the hindmost" tactic. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:Daniel.Veillard@i...] I will just note that exhibiting prior art is not sufficient. You also need some legal action to take place before getting a patent removed, right ? (I would be soooo happy if I was wrong !) If you think that the "homework" is just to collect prior, then it's probably something which could be done within W3C (directly by the staff or by a public call for prior art). But the legal action is where the problem might get solved and is an expensive (money, time, human, ...) process. I don't think W3C has enough resources (money, time, human, ...) to follow this path. And who else would take this task ? It's now notorious that the Patent Office doesn't do it's homework, who else should consider its homework to invest in costly battles for getting this fixed a posteriori ?
|
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
|