[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Amy Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:06:07 -0500
Not naivete. I don't keep up with the open
source projects with the exception of VRML/X3D
and that only by reading that mail list. I
don't know which have been shut down or
what patents were enforced.
If projects are shut down due to enforcement,
that emphasizes why a patent policy is necessary,
and why it should be flexible. Underfunding
is not an excuse to break the law any more
than lack of knowledge is a reason for any
group to get a patent.
One might want to dig a little deeper into
the subject of software patents to uncover
what values make one defensible and another
not. Sun gets to keep the patent that affects
XPointer despite the obvious prior art because
no one is willing to pay the money to take
them on and because they granted RF RAND.
From: Amy Lewis [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 6:27 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: David Brownell; Jeff Lowery; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:28:28PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Patents are a fact of life and law. We have to
>deal with it. I have to wonder whether or
>not open source implementations are violating
>any existing patents and if so, who gets nailed.
Is this deliberate naivete? A number of "hot" open source projects
have been shut down due to enforcement of patents ... sometimes patents
that are defensible, but more often, since most software patents are
indefensible on their faces, not.