Re: [xml-dev] Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)

[Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>]

At 02:25 PM 10/5/2001 -0700, PaulT wrote:

> > >1) do their best to ensure against patent fringement in our specs
> > >2) disclose patents affecting any W3C activities or forfeit profit from
>them
> > >3) will challenge legally any patent disputes that may arise after
> > >recommendation
> > >4) will deprecate recommendations if patent challenge fails
> > >
> > >I think such a policy will provide reasonable level of protection against
> > >patents in standards.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that's really what they have now, and it clearly hasn't
>worked.
>
>If it *clearly*  hasn't worked, may I ask for some example?

Nearly every patent claim faced by the W3C.

Let's consider:

CSS -- Microsoft participated in the WG - then later claimed "oh, we did 
that years ago, we own the patent". Their AC rep claimed no knowledge of 
prior claims/property -- did his "best" to disclose.

XPointer - Sun -- "we helped create this, heck, even were primary driving 
force in the WG, and "oops", we have a patent on it".

Ad nauseum.

Ann
Ann Navarro, WebGeek Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com/
What's on my mind? http://www.snorf.net/blog/	
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hooya waling waling wi tiyil!