RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents

[Benjamin Franz <snowhare@nihongo.org>]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Patents do not extort.  They are licensed.  You are
> demanding other's property for free if the W3C
> harvests it.  Otherwise, there is no issue here.

No. RF demands that W3C member companies must license the relevant patents
for free if they wish W3C to use the technology they (the company)
patented as the base for a W3C standard ('scuse me: 'recommendation').

My draconian version of a contract also would say that it is the W3C
member organizations obligation to identify and make known such patent
issues from their portfolios (if it is too onerous for _the company that
obtained the patent_ to identify said conflicts, how in the world is
anyone _else_ supposed to identify them? Particularly if said patent is
only _applied_ for and hence not yet public?)

Patents as currently issued by the USPTO _are_ being used as a form of
legalized extortion: cf. Amazon and 'one click' ordering and its use as
a blunt instrument against Barnes & Noble's online effort. The USPTO has
long since become a rubber stamp on patents. There is honest-to-god a
patent from the USPTO on using a laser pointer as a cat toy.

http://www.legamedia.net/lochlex/2001/01-03/0103_lenger_gustav_cat-exercise.php

Pay no attention to sections 102 and 103 of US Title 35, Part II, Chapter
10 regarding what is patentable. After all - the USPTO doesn't.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/102.text.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/103.text.html

-- 
Benjamin Franz

 "Code as if whoever maintains your code is a violent
  psychopath who knows where you live."
                    -- Nancy Lebovitz, the button lady