[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Ann Navarro <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Daniel.Veillard@imag.fr
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:30:09 -0600
Yes and no. I have to waffle here because groups such
as MPEG make no secret of the fact they are influencing
standards and including patent pools. This does happen.
I don't like it but it does. Sometimes to keep a
standard in forward motion, one accepts that the common
technology is a patented one.
In this particular case, the claim is fairly absurd on the
surface. Given that Eve is not absurd, I guess there are
subsurface properties of which we are not aware.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Ann Navarro [mailto:email@example.com]
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