W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

Re: False patent claims

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:12:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CACDmtYbkWf8pZT_pjqfz0kE-PT9B+HX+VjSjfpO9dJGynY4bWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
(forgive me for intruding... I'm not a WG member and just observing.)

Hi Peter,

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but the purpose of the W3C PAG process
is to handle exceptions, so that all WG members can continue to work
towards a standard that can be licensed under RF terms (i.e.,
non-discriminatory and royalty-free), without having to also think about
potential patent issues in addition to the substance of the standard.

And the PAG inherits the public nature of the WG, so it will be public,
just not mixed up with the substance of the WG until the PAG needs to
interact with the WG (e.g., surveying WG members, reporting to the WG,
etc.).

best, Joe


On Monday, June 18, 2012, Peter Cranstone wrote:

> Nope.
>
> It should be out in the public for all to see. Just like Mozilla has done..
>
>
> Peter
> ___________________________________
> Peter J. Cranstone
> 720.663.1752
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org <javascript:;>>
> Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:42 AM
> To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org <javascript:;>>, W3 Tracking <
> public-tracking@w3.org <javascript:;>>
> Subject: Re: False patent claims
>
> >I would like to repeat my request to keep patent discussion off this
> >mailing
> >list.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >--
> >Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org <javascript:;>>  (@roessler)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 2012-06-18, at 16:39 +0200, Peter Cranstone wrote:
> >
> >> For those who are interested in following along. Here's Mozilla's take
> >>on
> >> the Patent claim: https://wiki.mozilla.org/DNT_false_patent_claim
> >>
> >> They go on to sayŠ
> >>
> >> Based upon a thorough analysis by independent patent counsel, Mozilla
> >> concluded that the Œ206 patent did not cover the W3C DNT specification
> >> because the specification did not satisfy all of the limitations of the
> >> claims.
> >>
> >> Maybe Mozilla would care to add a little more detail in exactly how
> >>adding
> >> a privacy header to the protocol did not satisfy all of the limitations
> >>of
> >> the claims and in doing so share their complete analysis.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter
> >> ___________________________________
> >> Peter J. Cranstone
> >> 720.663.1752
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 19:47:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC