- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:43:29 -0400
- To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Hi Daniel, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0562.html > result=((1-mask)*source)+(mask*destination). > So this is an example of the worst kind of patent: a patent on a > mathematical expression. Furthermore, a particularly obvious one > that many, including myself, have been using for years prior to > the date of Apple's patent. Ironincally enough, of the patent specifications I've read this one is at least understandable! (Often they are either there incomprehensible, or comprehensible but obvious. The RSA patent is the sole exception in my experience.) Regardless, the patent disclosures also state, "The SVG Working Group made a concerted effort to produce a specification that does not require implementors to infringe the patent." [1]. Unfortunately under the patent system, the patent holder really doesn't have much of an obligation to help you determine if you are infringing their claims. That's why claims are written so ambigously. Additionally, the PTO believes it to be valid and it's your obligation to disprove it. In this instance, it doesn't appear that there would be any alternative other than *abandoning* SVG, simply because Apple believes they have a patent that *might* apply, or because IBM or Quark might have a patent but are unwilling to do the search. Absent a mechanism to eliminate all software patents or companies' desire to use them, I'm not sure what you are advocating. In this instance there is a Recommendation that might be encumbered though the design tries to avoid it, and if it becomes challenged, it'll have to be resolved in court. If the claims stand, then if people that use SVG will have to use a RAND license. That's unfortunate, but is this better than not having any SVG at all? Should standards organization *stop* because *anyone* alleges infringement? Your proposal seems to rely upon "forking", which I don't understand. Unlike copyright where you can go off and create your own version of copyrighted software the patent claims still exists and the "forkers" still can be sued. The sad thing is they might not even know about it until it's too late or in the absense of a disclosure there will even be more FUD or discriminatory terms. *This* very thing *has* happened to me. One can ask that companies dipose of their property under a Royalty Free License, or challenge the law/decisions which categorize such ideas as property (I support both), but I don't yet understand your proposal. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html -- [[I will be on holiday October 4-11 2001.]] Regards, http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/ Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E * This email is from an independent academic account and is not necessarily representative of my affiliations.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 15:43:39 UTC