Lists Home |
Date Index |
Well, I agree that it is regrettable, but I also think it is
unavoidable right now, and I doubt that waffling is the portent we
need to worry over so much as a patent policy such as was being
floated before this blew up in everyone's faces last year.
Somewhere along the line I am reasonably hopeful we will reach a
compromise that works for most parties. That's what usually happens.
What shape it will take, and whether or not the process will be
dragged out by parties who hope to profit one way or another. either
during the delay or as a result of whatever policy emerges, remains
to be seen.
At 11:42 AM -0600 2/26/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>This article indicates "RF only". If they haven't worked out the
>policy, they are back to square one. It does not bode well
>for the W3C if this is not *clearly* enunciated. This kind
>of waffling is a horrible portent.
>In a reference draft being published on Tuesday, the W3C has moved
>back to the "royalty free" standard.
>"The current practice is we set the goal of producing royalty free
>standards but it doesn't really have a mechanism for enforcing
>that," said Daniel J. Weitzner, chair of the patent policy working
>group at the W3C. "What we're proposing in this draft is to add a
>legally binding commitment on the part of anyone who participates in
>a standard that any patents they have will be available royalty
>The draft is not the final say on the matter. A "last call" draft
>will be published later this year, at which point the public and W3C
>members will submit comments. A final decision from the director of
>the W3C is hoped for by the end of the year, said W3C spokeswoman
>And there are still some issues to be worked out, Weitzner said.
>"There is still an open question of what's going to happen in the
>case that we run into tech that's only available for a fee. That
>could happen regardless of what our policy is. We still have to sort
>out what happens in that exceptional case," he said"
>From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
>On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 09:39, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Any lawyers out there able to decipher this document?
>I've given it a rough shot at:
>It seems to me like Royalty-Free is very strongly preferred, but they're
>keeping their options open if absolutely necessary. The "Exception
>Handling" part is especially interesting.
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
Fax: By Request