[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: Staffan Måhlén <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:05:41 +0200
>>From: Bart Schuller [mailto:email@example.com]
>>I'm clamoring for no software patents please. And before you tell me
>>they have been there for years and I'm out of touch with reality: I'm
>>not in the US.
>From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
>That can't be changed by the W3C.
Did you read ?
I'd venture a guess that:
In case a third party attempts to impede the implementation of a
Recommendation or to make it conditional on license fees, all members
agree to view such an attack against a W3C Recommendation as a patent
attack against their organization. All members will retaliate with measures
appropriate and necessary to stop the third party attack.
If a third party attempts to impede the implementation of a
Recommendation or make it conditional on license fees, the Director may, at
his sole discretion:
a) Ask the third party to stop the impeding actions.
b) Post the name of the impeding third party on the "wall of shame" section
of the W3C homepage.
c) Recommend to the Internet community to help invalidating the impeding
patent by a collective prior art search.
d) Recommend to the Internet community to set up their networks in a way
that blocks any traffic to and from the impeding third party's servers.
from the W3C members would have an effect. W3C has options as well as means.
Also, the point he makes about the process is quite interesting.
BTW, which examples of US software patents potentially encumbering W3C
Recommendations are you referring to when you say they pay for research?
(That is, why do you seem to assume they are automagically valid and useful?)
In what way do you feel the dot.com death proves anything about US
software patents regarding W3C Recs?
And yes, you are right when you say a policy is needed. Chances are
professor Lenz's would give a somewhat different effect than the proposed.