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: <6.2.5.6.1.20070418071929.01db3908@sru.edu>
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
>>rendering 
>>(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/ 
>>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.

Agreed.

>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 
Wilson 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1098.html) 
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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC