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

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

He is talking about things he think may have happened, 
that do not happen in all cases, and are the very reasons 
if they do happen that a W3C policy for patents is 
required.  The only issue at hand is the specification 
of non-RF technologies in their products.  That should 
be discouraged but there are different means and that 
is why the policy has to be scrutinized.  It may be 
that the definitions of scope and means for specifications 
and standards have to be made clearer, the work involved 
in creating a WG and administering it made harder and more 
rigorous, and the W3C must more carefully cherry pick its 
projects and engage in more direct cooperation with the 
national standards bodies whose governments do represent 
public interests.

The patent attack topics are a red herring that allows 
people to ignore the issue that the Internet is not 
the W3C's to govern in the public's interest.  The W3C 
does not represent the public.  This is a different topic 
but one that becomes increasingly relevant as some 
try to use the issues of the patent-policy to attach 
their beliefs about the patent laws to the W3C.  I 
think they do neither their cause nor the W3C much 
good with that tactic.  The morals of the W3C members 
are the business of the individual members.  The 
W3C is only responsible for its policies.  The nut 
mail that seeks to force the members to their will 
will be ignored and attempts to execute actions 
such as some have proposed prosecuted.  I suggest 
everyone ramp down their rhetoric.  The W3C will 
issue its policy in due time and those subject 
to that authority will make their decision vis 
a vis their responses to it.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Richards [mailto:frichards@softquad.com]

>Yet a lot of the obvious enhancements
>get patented.

I don't think so.  Some do but the patent office isn't quite
that stupid.

Yep, once the Patent Office has issued a bogopatent to some BigCo for every
significant programming technique invented between 1946 and 1991 they
probably will do a fairly good job of only issuing patents for real
improvements.

>Or is every hobbyist entitled to their own bigco who'll pay the lawyer's
>fees to attack bogus patents?

Every hobbyist is entitled to give away that which is theirs to dispose
of in the manner and to whom they see fit.   They aren't entitled to
do that with the property of others.

Len, You're saying how the system is supposed to work. He's talking about
how it's actually broken. You're talking past each other.