[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: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 12:09:39 -0400

At 08:53 AM 10/5/2001 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:

>Draconian, sure. But it does the right thing by shifting the burden from
>everyone else in the world to find out that concept Y has been patented
>to the holder of the patent to _make known_ that they hold a patent on Y.

 From a practical stand point, this is difficult to accomplish.
The organization's Advisory Committee representative is the one responsible 
for such disclosures at the time W3C activities are proposed. These 
individuals often earnestly attempt to comply, but aren't given the support 
from their organizations to do so -- meaning time, and access to the IP 
counsel and/or departments that manage the IP portfolios (which can have 
thousands and thousands of properties when you're talking about IBM, Xerox, 
and other large organizations).

Draconian contract wording looks good, but violations are likely to be 
commonplace despite it.

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: Jim Ancona <scarhill@y...>

• References:
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • RE: Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
    • From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
• Next by Date: Re: Adobe XMP?
• 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