[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[xml-dev] Patent Townhall Meeting and new W3C Patent Issue (was RE:[xml-de v] Patent Pools)
- From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:31:51 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 4:27 PM
> To: David Brownell; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] Patent Pools
> Here are some bits to read. If nothing else, read the
> USPTO article (in PDF of course). For those of you
> going to the Orlando conference, this should prepare
> you better than simply packing torches and pitchforks.
Thanks for the references and tips on town hall etiquitte As moderator, I
*heartily* endorse the "no torches and pitchforks" suggestion :~)
It would be great if people planning to attend the town hall meeting in
Orlando *do* do some of this background reading and think about creative yet
realistic suggestions for moving this matter forward to some resolution
that everyone can live with. Maybe the patent pools idea, or other
suggestions whereby the W3C can leverage its resources to persuade its
members to act in the common interest, can help. Anyway, it really is time
to move this debate to the next level and talk about what the W3C can
realistically do to define, implement, and enforce a patent policy that
"leads the Web to its fullest potential."
One specific example of a patent issue that the W3C is obviously going to
have to address came to light today, although I haven't seen public comment
on the patent implications: Voice XML 2.0. The working draft says:
"This document seeks Member and public comment on both the
technical design and the patent licensing issues arising out
of the disclosure and licensing statements that have been made. Our
decision to publish this first public working draft has been
made to secure early comments from the community, but does
not imply that all questions of patent licensing have been
resolved or clarified. They must be resolved or work on this
document in W3C will stop. As things stand at the time of
publication of this specification, implementations
conforming to this specification may require royalty bearing
licenses for essential IPR."
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-voicexml20-20011023/ and especially
Also, check out
for a related issue; remember that if the W3C fails to offer "standards"
that can be widely adopted and implemented, there are lots of proprietary
technologies whose owners would be happy to fill in the gap.
These issues should make for interesting discussion in the patent policy
town meeting, and I hope that many of you can attend and contribute your
wisdom to this thorny topic.