- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:22:53 +0200
- To: Jason Antony <strat666@nettaxi.com>, "Jason Antony" <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>, <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
On October 4, 2001 06:38 am, Jason Antony wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > <snip /> > > > So if we count the thumb as a finger then > > you're right, we don't have to go to the second hand. > > > Ah, *but*: > > - Susan Lesch's message doesn't commend RAND, it only praises the document > as "excellent from a mechanical standpoint". No mention of RAND. > > - Gerald Lane's standpoint leaves me confused. While his first > para indicates support for RAND, his closing para goes thus: > > <quote>The W3C Patent Policy Framework Proposal will never provide > complete certainty for specification developers and product > implementers. We should allow the technical experts to work > unencumbered by complicated rules and leave the patent issues for > discussion outside of the standards organizations.</quote> > > By this, does he mean standards orgs [a la W3C] should stay out of > proposing such frameworks, or that they shouldn't dictate how patent > holders may implement their "IP" in standards? > > The more I read it, the more the latter seems the one. Leave him in. > > - Alex Simons of Microsoft: no comment :-) although I wonder if it > could've been forged. Has anyone verified the IP ad. in the msg header? > > - Daniel Weitzner - I couldn't find a single instance where he commends > RAND per se without quoting the PPF draft. Still, we'll leave this one > in. > > - Janet Daly has merely posted the text version of W3C's response to our > comments, which is mirrored at http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response > Again, no personal commendation. > > > So now, we're down to what, two or three comments in favour of RAND's > adoption? If we go by your reckoning (and the Microsoft comment really is a forgery) then we're down to zero. Of course, it's possible I overlooked some favorable comments in my quick scan of over a thousand emails. -- Daniel
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 02:22:58 UTC