OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Another Microsoft XML patent

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


I think your interpretation is correct, and that is 
ok.  Otherwise, formation of a WG and participation 
without RF commitments would be tantamount to asking 
an organization to leave the consortium.  Consider the 
depth of some of the patent portfolios and it is 
unlikely one can do any specification work without 
tripping over someone's patent.

The past is past.  What we are dealing with are world wide 
systems that must interoperate.  This flies directly into 
strategies to create an IP economy.  I do understand this 
because a company with valid patents and licensing can 
fold that into the valuation of the company, the stock 
analysts see that, and the value of the company increases 
(say stock price goes up).  That's legitimate.  On the 
other hand, if we want larger markets then participation 
in the consortia for the construction of the world wide 
systems are required.  Companies that get booted from 
the consortia or create the perception that they are 
illegitimately and fraudulently creating or perpetuating 
monopolies over vital technological markets begin to 
lose sales and that detracts from their valuation.

We can lobby and try to use the current administration's 
laissez-faire America Uber Alles attitudes to keep the 
DoJ off our backs, but this is a WORLD economy and nations 
are starting to notice this stuff.  At the end of the day, 
a company might want to notice that their ethics and their 
honor are on display here.  

Maybe it doesn't matter to some, but I believe over time, 
it will matter to their customers because if we are 
willing to cheat our partners and allies, what can be 
expected of us with regard to our customers?



(speaking personally and not for my employer)

From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@gmail.com]

Welllllll ... not exactly.  See
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/  Not having been
tortured by giant squirrels in my childhood I'm not inured to the pain
that studying this document closely would inflict, but the essence
seems to be: "As a condition of participating in a Working Group, each
participant (W3C Members, W3C Team members, invited experts, and
members of the public) shall agree to make available under W3C RF
licensing requirements any Essential Claims related to the work of
that particular Working Group. "   Presumably companies do an internal
patent search to understand what they would be making available before
joining a WG, but that's not part of the W3C process.  So, there's no
guarantee that the spec can be implemented without impinging upon a
patent, there's only a promise by patent holders ON THE WG to licence
there is a mechanism for excluding specific patents ... I *think* this
is a way of telling the WG "BTW, we have a patent on [something or
other] that we're not willing to license on RF terms, better make sure
that the spec can be implemented without infringing it" but I could
very easily be mistaken.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS