- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:33:25 +0000
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Chris Wilson<cwilso@microsoft.com> wrote: >> However, the critical point here is that patent holders go after the money > >This is good to understand. So, if YouTube was to support Ogg Theora, >then presumably Google would be a bigger target. If YouTube were to put all their content up in Ogg/Theora, yes, they'd probably be a more interesting target - because you could work the chain backward to "any money made from YouTube". Oh, wait. :) >I think patent roll calls are usually done within a standards body to >get everyone who is involved in creating the standard to step forward >and register their demands on the patent pool at the given time. Right, but that's why organizations like the W3C have a Patent Policy, and Members have to agree to that policy - it's a commitment. The broader world of potential patent holders haven't signed up to that. >But it's an idea and it would be nice if there >was a lawyer to comment on its potential. The W3C has a legal team, I believe.. Dan or Mike, could you forward this? -Chris
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 15:35:12 UTC