W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

RE: Formal Objection to One vendor, One Veto

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>
Message-ID: <61027177C88032458A7862054B3C625803E375FA@TK5EX14MBXW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT