[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:45:12 -0500
That's why one learns to read the contracts
and keeps a lawyer around to ask. Failure to
know the law is not a defense against prosecution.
It's after-the-fact compulsion that is scary.
Those are the explicit reservations that
translate as "We don't know which of our
patents may apply to this WG product, but
if any that we own do, we reserve the right
to apply them." And they will. That we have
seen and understand, and really, can't object
to on any grounds other than *bad manners*.
What must be disallowed is the submarine patent.
I don't know if it would hold, but I would
change the language such that bringing up a
patent late in the game carries a penalty of
some sort. RAND is a compromise at best; it
cannot be allowed to become a means to stall
Can the W3C survive on royalty-free specifications?
I don't think so. Those with patents pending
simply find other venues. If the W3C says,
"fine but not in our house", that house will
be less well maintained.
Can they provide a policy that ensures RAND now
and into the future? Maybe but only insofar as
they can tie participating parties down with
airtight contract language.
Is the draft that policy?
I doubt it. Just intuition.
But that is what is being asked, it seems.
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 14:22, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> For the scope of authority over that set of
> contract entities to which the answer can be
Uh, Len... I may be misreading it, but I don't see a "who" there.
"Contract entities" is not especially compelling to those of us who
currently find contracts in this field to be more bondage than blessing.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 13:54, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > o What is needed?
> > o What is possible?
> > o What is sustainable?
> I'd add a "for who" to the end of all of those questions.
"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue