[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: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: Don Park <donpark@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 08:28:38 -0400

At 02:03 AM 10/6/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:

While I understand your point of view, I fail to understand why we have to
>pay for their lack of coordination?  Taking IBM as an example, why couldn't
>they inform their lawyers about ongoing W3C activities by simply forwarding
>information to them.  Is IBM's IT technology not up to their task?


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?

Multiply that by the number of activity proposals in a year, times the 
salaries of the in-house counsel involved.

Which is cheaper -- doing this or making a claim after the fact if one is 
discovered?

Ann



Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hooya waling waling wi tiyil!

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III <winchel@m...>
  • Re: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: Thanks to HP & Oracle
• 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