RE: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Because the working group can stumble into situations in which 
the recommendation or standard violates existing patents unknowingly.
Item 2) below does not account for that possibility.

The W3C is on dangerous ground and has been for some time.  The 
XPointer situation illustrates that and how it can be taken 
completely out of their hands using a submarine patent, even 
one that in the face of prior art, is left standing given 
the lack of will or resources to overturn it.  Such patents 
may have favorable terms offered, but a patent can be reassigned, 
sold, etc. and the new owner not bound by these terms.

I don't think they can continue to operate unless a RAND 
policy is adopted because the lucrativeness of patents and 
patent pools (see MPEG) is known and given the low profit 
margins in core technologies (not low-level as defined 
in the policy, but such things as browsers), will be pursued 
with relentless vigor.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]

<snip />

My question is why the W3C would consider the RAND activity? 

<snip />

2) Commercial entities that do not wish to, or are not able, to fully
disclose their IPR should be prevented access to the relevent WG activities
and internal discussions if such discussions are not otherwise publically
available.

<snip />