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

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

Yet another wrinkle... so stepping back, why spec or 
standardize heavily patented technology?  <assert>In effect, 
the patent is already restricting innovative development 
and has the effect of standardization.</assert>

It comes back around to a different policy: how does the 
W3C decide to pursue a specification/standardization process?

The difficulty seems to be in establishing when a technology 
is encumbered and how does one determine that without research 
or membership disclosure?   In effect, if one discovers some 
domain has facets that are patented and there are not acceptable 
alternatives for the critical parts, why would one want to 
pursue a standard?  There are reasons, but some kind of rules 
for settling this would seem to be useful.

Who wants to be a chair for a hotly contested technology 
standard if one isn't a patent owner or for which there 
isn't already a clear need that makes the acceptance of 
the RAND terms preferable to not having the standard?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Greif [mailto:jgreif@alumni.princeton.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:01 PM
To: Jonathan Borden; Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed?


If I understand correctly, a submarine patent is one that is applied for
(thus setting the date of invention) and then repeatedly extended or amended
before being granted by the patent office, thus delaying for (in some cases)
several years the public disclosure that goes with patent awards.  Then the
patent can be used to go after people who infringed unknowningly.  I think
there have been recent attempts to change USPTO policy with regard to these
patents to make this tactic less fruitful.

The issue is not failing to enforce a patent, but failing to disclose a
pending patent.