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

[Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 08:06:07AM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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.  

  You seems to have a *very* narrow view about what free software
is (or OpenSource). It doesn't mean there is no money involved, it
means source code is accessible and redistributable. That software
also happens to usually be cheaper but it's not the point.

  The point is that for free software one knows immediately what
are the effects of a bad law or a stupid patent. When project
are cancelled for similar reasons (or even companies destroyed)
there isn't that much fuss. On the other hand free software advocates
are far more vocal when such issues arose.

> 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.

  Unrelated to free vs. non-free software, right ? Noboby wants
to spend 100,000$ to chase even completely and obviously bogus
patents. It took Sun quite a while before they granted RF RAND,
and as far as I know nobody was ready to line up in court to defeat
their bogus patent.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/