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

Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0

• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: Daniel.Veillard@i..., Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:12:23 -0500

Daniel Veillard wrote:
>
>   Hi Eliotte,
>
> > I recommend complete rejection of this specification until such time as
> > Sun's patent can be dealt with more reasonably.
>
> Do you plan to reject use of Linking on the Web due to BT patent too ???
> If not what's so specific about this patent.
> As a Frenchmen I would rather reject all Patent crap which makes rich
> cororations of Lawyers and kill people trying to get a place under the
> Sun.
>
>   IMHO you're trying to fight the wrong problem. We just managed to learn
> about this patent. How many similar patent would IBM hold on other parts
> of XPointer that we simply didn't heard of ??? We can't chase them all
> and if we did we would make no progress every effort would be wasted
> doing those Patent lookups and fighting them :-(((

As I see it, the problem is much less that Sun has a probably unenforcable
patent, but rather that the W3C who has copyright on the XPointer spec, is
licensing its use under conditions that acknowledge Sun's patent.

This would be analogous to the W3C licensing use of HTML on condition that
users pay a royalty to BT.

-Jonathan

• References:
  • (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@i...>
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: DTD and Illegal Construct
• Next by Date: RE: DTD and Illegal Construct
• Previous by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread