W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > October 2001

Re: The Once and Future Web

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>
Message-Id: <20011004062250Z16382-17200+450@humbolt.nl.linux.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:41 GMT