[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
- From: Ann Navarro <email@example.com>
- To: Daniel.Veillard@imag.fr, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:09:41 -0500
At 05:34 PM 1/11/01 +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 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 ?
The W3C has made calls for prior art to fight patent assertions in the
past, I wouldn't expect that policy to change. With all respect to Eve,
Sun's "offer" for the licensing is inappropriate in an consortium-based
standards body, and should not attempt to force submissions of what
otherwise could be true IP of other companies into the open-source space.
I would certainly lobby for a rejection of any document containing such a
Ann Navarro, Author and Chief Geek
WebGeek, Inc. http://www.webgeek.com
Now Available! - XHTML By Example -