[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
- From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@imag.fr>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:34:34 +0100
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:14:09AM -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Then the W3C did not do their homework. Matching on a
> string has prior art. The only thing I see is that
> if it is only the use of string matching based on
> the URI, and the URI precludes standard Windows-like
> path based UNC names, then they weasel out. Otherwise,
> there is clearly prior art and the W3C failed to
> acknowledge it thereby creating this dilemma for themselves.
I will just note that exhibiting prior art is not sufficient.
You also need some legal action to take place before getting a
patent removed, right ? (I would be soooo happy if I was wrong !)
If you think that the "homework" is just to collect prior,
then it's probably something which could be done within W3C
(directly by the staff or by a public call for prior art).
But the legal action is where the problem might get solved
and is an expensive (money, time, human, ...) process. I don't
think W3C has enough resources (money, time, human, ...) to
follow this path. And who else would take this task ?
It's now notorious that the Patent Office doesn't do
it's homework, who else should consider its homework to
invest in costly battles for getting this fixed a posteriori ?
Speaking for himself
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
firstname.lastname@example.org | libxml Gnome XML toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/