OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)

They admit that.  They also don't care.  They have a large body of
moneyed members willing to implement their specifications.  On the
other hand, the American courts have a tort for misappropriation that
while not used in other countries' courts, is available in the country
that has the most companies that are members of the W3C and
have to abide by American contract law and disputes arbitrated
in American courts.
Remember, we are looking at the notions of standards, specifications, etc.
and inquiring what the value of these are (why does the XML spec
make reference to ISO 8879 if it doesn't need to, why do people insist
on the W3C being a standards organization when the results are
exactly the same with the current policies and processes).   IP is just one level
of this.  It is a good trail to follow because it outs several problems
with authority (there is none and where there are assertions of such,
they are all local (canadian, american, etc.) but the locale is important
because that is the venue).    A bit more research may uncover other
precedents old, new, or vague.  When it gets to a court, a panel
of judges has to call that one.
I didn't say the situation wasn't twisted.  It is.    It may also mean
that the references out of the statutes in Texas, the sort of stuff
XML.GOV promotes, etc., aren't worth a hill of beans in a contractual
Hard to say.  No rules.
And those simple designs of five years ago are getting awfully twisted
too.  SGML looks good by comparison to that.  It needs some modernizing.
That is something ISO should consider seriously.


Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Park [mailto:donpark@docuverse.com]

Both Common-XML and Minimal-XML are subsets of XML, so I guess the same argument can be made that SML-DEV misappropriated W3C's intellectual property.  Right or wrong, its a twisted trail.
It was my understanding that W3C has trademarked the word "XML" and copyrighted every specifications it produces.  If my understanding is right, then W3C is claiming ownership over some words and a growing set of specific word sequences, not ideas nor concepts.
I care less about intellectual properties and more about good simple designs.  For the past couple of weeks, I have been looking at SNMP in detail.  I don't know about you guys, but SNMP goes in the same basket as SGML.