[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks, to day)
- From: PaulT <email@example.com>
- To: Ann Navarro <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Don Park <email@example.com>,firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 16:31:21 -0700
> > > >1) do their best to ensure against patent fringement in our specs
> > > >2) disclose patents affecting any W3C activities or forfeit profit
> > > >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
> > > >patents in standards.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, that's really what they have now, and it clearly hasn't
> >If it *clearly* hasn't worked, may I ask for some example?
> Nearly every patent claim faced by the W3C.
According to the principles above, this is (?) just covered
by (3) and (4).
Don says: "the principles are 1,2,3,4"
You say: "These principles is the currect situation
with W3C and it has not worked".
I'm trying to understand what do you mean by
'has not worked'.
> 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.
So, there are some *particular* problem, influencing
the creative work of W3C, other than MS
trying to steal something again?
What is the *problem* here?
Do I understand right that some parts of CSS have been
thrown away only because MS has tried to claim that
CSS is yet another invention of MS? Please confirm.
If this is not the case, may I repeat - what is *particular*
problem with CSS, that can not be resolved
by the principles, descibed above ( according to
your words - those principles are 'de-facto'
situation in W3C already - am I right? ).
> XPointer - Sun -- "we helped create this, heck, even were primary driving
> force in the WG, and "oops", we have a patent on it".
The same question. I don't see any difference between
these two ( CSS, and XPointer ) other than ... maybe ...
XPointer it is kinda useless. Comparing to CSS.
But I don't think that's relevant.
> Ad nauseum.
Let us understand what is the problem? Really. I honestly
don't get it.
I think it is simple. Either W3C makes it simple for
MS or other big guys to make stupid patent claims,
or it does not. Sofar W3C was trying to restrict
those 'inventors' and I think that *it*has*worked*just*fine*.
You say - it has not. Why?