[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: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Don Park <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 09:06:49 -0500
They are specifications for the development of technology
that may infringe the intellectual property of another
1. Full disclosure must be required. If not, the technology
cannot proceed to a W3C specification safely. Obvious.
2. Because patents may in be in process, disclosure will
require disclosure of in-process patents. This means it is
possible and even useful to patent ahead of reality. Non-obvious.
No process of this kind will be successful without the
good will of the companies. Patenting ahead of the
requirements curve enables companies and individuals
to control technology adaptation. The politics of market
will be played out in the W3C. That by the way, is how
the W3C will become a stagnant organization. Pursuing
standards is a pathetic attempt to legitimize their
own attempts at hegemony in much the same manner as
the corporations people want to fault.
MIT owns patents too. Most research universities do.
So before you make this a religious assault on the
companies, or the PTO, or whoever, think through the
entire process and probable outcomes. The RAND has
to be reasonable and non-discrimanatory to all parties,
and not just the small developers who are now discovering
the formerly hidden costs of web development.
From: Don Park [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 4:39 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks,
> > At 02:03 AM 10/6/2001 -0700, Don Park wrote:
> > How long do you think it takes to do a thorough examination of an IP
> > portfolio with tens of thousands of items in it, to be able to
> declare with
> > any kind of competence that there is no conflict that needs to
> be declared?
Words above were written by Ann Navarro, not me. Frankly, I fail to see why
Ann is making these pointless arguments. So IBM has tens of thousands of
land mines all over the tecnological landscape and is planting more as we
speak, yet IBM can't keep track of them?
Patents mean protection to patent holders, but they are like land mines to
others. If IBM can't keep track of their patents, we have even less chance
of knowing where the mines are hidden. Standards produced by organizations
like W3C, IETF, and OASIS are important, not only for standardization, but
also because they are the only known safe passage thru the landscape
littered with buried IP mines.
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription