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

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

They are specifications for the development of technology 
that may infringe the intellectual property of another 
entity.

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.

len   

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Park [mailto:donpark@docuverse.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 4:39 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Let's get real on W3C XForms 1.0 (why it stinks,
to day)


> > 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.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>