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

RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: David Brownell <david-b@p...>, Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:28:28 -0500

And a sharp WG chair will have to figure out when 
that is the end result of a RAND non-RF agreement. 
As stated earlier, one of the onerous aspects of this 
is the requirements placed on the WG Chair, but it 
is more dangerous to leave that person without a 
policy to guide them.  A RAND non-RF should only 
be considered in extreme circumstances.  One 
might inquire what is "extreme" or if it is possible 
to meet the specification using the licensed 
technology without requiring it.  The problem 
is writing a specification that is so nebulous 
one can do that.

Patents are a fact of life and law.  We have to 
deal with it.   I have to wonder whether or 
not open source implementations are violating 
any existing patents and if so, who gets nailed.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...]

As John Cowan pointed out,
one set of physical commons was destroyed not all that long
ago in order to promote/benefit private landowners.

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Next by Date: Re: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Next by thread: Re: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread