W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Precision of <canvas> rendering (was: Re: Formal definition of HTML5)

From: David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:52:22 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Joe D'Andrea" <jdandrea@gmail.com>,<public-html@w3.org>

At 03:47 AM 4/18/2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>On Apr 18, 2007, at 03:06, Dailey, David P. wrote:
>>Then I expect that if we use what you've said here to answer to my
>>question about further patent entanglements associated with the
>>0975.html) , then we would predict no additional entanglements.
>I am not a lawyer. (Personally, I am not worried.)

Yes, moi non plus. That's the conclusion I'm converging on too, I think.

>>(I'm assuming the things you mention are all tried and true and
>>stem from algorithms developed in the early 1980's or before).
>PostScript dates from 1982. The PDF 1.4 imaging model extended the
>PostScript imaging model with transparency and Porter­Duff
>compositing. The Porter­Duff paper is from 1984.
>>May one assume that Deneba does not see a JavaScript API for
>>drawing as conflicting with a drawing program of the same name?
>I am not a trademark lawyer, but "canvas" is a generic English word
>and <canvas> as part of HTML5 is not a marketing name of a product.

HTML5 is not a product but the things in which it 
appears are likely to be. If I were a judge it 
might take some convincing to conclude that one 
piece of software for drawing that is named 
<canvas> does not dilute the mark of another 
piece of software for drawing named Canvas. It 
may be that ACD (Deneba's) product does not have 
a trademark claim on "Canvas" There are 326 
trademarks listed as active by USPTO having the 
word canvas contained in the word mark, and I 
don't know if ACD is among them or not.

>>I'm just trying to convince myself that any reasons to argue
>>against the <canvas> tag are independent of legalities.
>If you are concerned about the participants to this WG holding
>relevant patents, if anything, you should argue *for* publishing the
><canvas> spec through this WG.


>In general, due to the nature of software idea patents and due to the
>U.S. statutory damages on knowing infringement, it is not feasible to
>research if every idea is patented or not and letting the fear stop
>real work would be paralyzing to a WG like this.

In an earlier post on an related issue, I 
believe, I cited a reference to a post by Chris 
where he seems to be imply the same conclusion 
that we are (I hope I'm not putting words in Chris' mouth).

The trademark issue, though, it seems, is a lot simpler:
1. Does ACD/Deneba hold a trademark on Canvas?
2. If so has anybody asked them if they would 
care if someone built a drawing thingy named canvas in HTML?
3. If not, should somebody ask them?
4. If not, would a average garden-variety 
trademark lawyer think that a claim of dilution 
by putative trademark holder would be tenable?

If the answer to any of these questions is 
preemptive, then <canvas> it would seem can be 
discussed on its merits, without any of these nasty issues.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:52:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC