Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed?
 It isn't incorrect. It can vary by case. An IPR owner unaware of the WG activity may only be made aware as the activity becomes public. Thus the patent policy will only be effective for the "members" who comply. The XPointer patent stands and without the policy, Sun quite effectively kept it in play even in the face of prior art. This case is prior to the draft policy being formulated but even with the existing policies, the patent did not stop XPointer. So the first year law student never got up to bat. In effect, the W3C already has a RAND standard. The concern over submarine patents is evident in the texts. Diminished strength is relevant to cost of pursuing it. A limit on the terms of the license would be a standard part of it but license provisions can vary by case and have come to the fore of some very large suits with peculiar assertions about ownership (duration) made. So the first year law student will not get to bat. Anyone familiar with patent cases knows they never do. It is a very expensive form of litigation and the rules and expense change across venues as some states offer for example, more favorable scheduling. Costs play a substantial role in this whole picture. The loosey goosey language troubles me too as I noted earlier. It seems to be centered around the will of the Chair of the WG as much as the member commitment. The responsibilities of the W3C are unclear and given that, I'd likely not only not want to use their standard or technology, I'd not want to be the chair either. As it stands, the RAND options are dangerous to exercise without substantial legal oversight and support. I do wonder who is going to pony up to that. Will, for example, the W3C retain a staff to review and comment on all WG charters and submissions to ensure RAND is being correctly followed? len -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] Len, > ...The > XPointer situation illustrates that and how it can be taken > completely out of their hands using a submarine patent, even > one that in the face of prior art, is left standing given > the lack of will or resources to overturn it. Such patents > may have favorable terms offered, but a patent can be reassigned, > sold, etc. and the new owner not bound by these terms. That is incorrect for several reasons. First, "submarine" patents have _significantly_ diminished strength. An IPR holder has an active responsability to enforce its IPR. Failure to inform and enforce means that while you may hold a patent, you loose the future right to seek damages from infringements of the patent. This is patent 101. Ask any first year law student. Second, a license is a license is a license. Neither party can change the terms of a contract after the fact _unless_ the contract grants such rights (e.g. "you may freely use this software today, but as of midnight all bets are off"). Mere selling of IPR does not invalidate any contract made which licenses the IPR. This is contract 101. Ask any first year law student. The language which concerns me _most_ is the loosey goosey non-requirement to disclose one's IPR. When an entity signs the contract to become a W3C member, and such contract contains language requiring the entity to disclose IPR, failure to do so may become evidence in court when such an entity tries to sue for patent infringement. As such a strong IPR disclosure policy would give me some assurance that I might safely implement or use a technology recommended by the W3C. A loose IPR disclosure policy, on the other hand, would make me avoid technologies recommended by the W3C. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
