W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Microsoft Seeks Browser Plug-In Patent Of Its Own

From: <TheoDP@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 02:02:51 -0500
To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
Cc: djweitzner@w3.org, kotok@w3.org
Message-ID: <35608C6D.4FFF958A.00053D18@aol.com>

What I would suggest is that the public may be less inclined to 
participate in this discussion after seeing the W3C leadership 
respond with a condescending FYI and by reinterpreting another's 
words instead of commenting on the USPTO's recent disclosure that 
Microsoft had a plug-in patent of its own in the works when it 
sought the W3C's support back in August.

In a message dated 1/2/2004 11:56:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, djweitzner@w3.org writes:

> While I can't offer an answer on behalf of the HTML Patent Advisory 
> Group constituted to address the Eolas patent, I can address the way 
> that the W3C Patent Policy works.
> 
> Patent Advisory Group's are created when we become aware of a patent 
> that is essential to a W3C Recommendation that is *not* available on 
> royalty-free terms.[1] Our policy is focused on hte most serioius 
> threats to interoperability. We do NOT create a PAG every time a patent 
> is discovered that might read on a Web standard. The US Patent system 
> being what it is, if we created a PAG for every patent allegedly related 
> to the Web, we would have more PAGs than technical working groups. :-(
> 
> New Recommendations developed under the W3C's new patent policy will 
> offer more (but not complete) licensing certainly. Our policy requires 
> that from now on, all who participate in the development of a W3C 
> Recommendation agree to license any essential patent claims they hold on 
> a royalty-free basis.
> 
> TheoDP@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Noting that nearly every Web user today relies on plug-in applications, the W3C fired 
> > off a passionate letter to the USPTO arguing that Eolas has no right to a patent that 
> > restricts access to the technology. 
> 
> FYI, our letter to the PTO said that we believed that there is a strong 
> case that the patent is invalid and that that PTO should take action as 
> quickly as possible to remove the damaging impact of the patent which 
> should not have been issued in the first place.
> 
> We did not, as you incorrectly suggest, challenge Eolas' right to hold a 
> patent in general on Web technology.
> 
> > 
> > So what does the W3C Patent Advisory Group (including its two Microsoft members), 
> > think of Microsoft's patent application for 'Displaying Plug-in Supplied Content 
> > in a Browser-Embedded Window', which the USPTO made public earlier this month?
> > 
> > See the patent application at: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220030226102%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20030226102&RS=DN/20030226102
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-Exception
> 
> -- 
> Daniel J. Weitzner                              +1.617.253.8036 (MIT)
> World Wide Web Consortium                       +1.202.364.4750 (DC)
> Technology & Society Domain Leader              
> <djweitzner@w3.org>
> http://www.w3.org/People/Weitzner.html
Received on Sunday, 4 January 2004 02:03:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:07:56 GMT