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

Re: Is Apple's patent valid?

From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp@home.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 08:17:14 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011004081714.00d1f6b0@netmail.home.com>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
>Adam Warner wrote:
>
>> > Jason Antony wrote:
>> >
>> > One of the obstacles preventing a royalty-free SVG [Scalable Vector
>> > Graphics] recommendation is a patent that Apple holds.
>> 
>> Are you sure?
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html
>> 
>> "Apple informed the SVG 1.0 Working Group very early in the SVG 1.0
>> process of the patent they listed in their license statement. The SVG
>> Working Group made a concerted effort to produce a specification that
>> does not require implementors to infringe the patent."
>
>I intended to point out that this patent had caused an issue in the 
>development of the SVG specification. This is what 30+ hours sans sleep 
>does to my memory.

It REMAINS an issue.  Look what the presence of Apple's refusal to offer
RF does to Adobe's offer (from the above-referenced URL):

In the event that all current members of the SVG 1.0 Working Group agree to negotiate Royalty-Free Licenses (as defined below) under any Essential Claims (as defined below) reading on the Specification to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import portions of implementations required by the Specification, Adobe Systems Incorporated and its affiliates (collectively, "Adobe" or "Member") agree to negotiate Royalty-Free Licenses on such terms. In the event that such members do not so agree, Adobe agrees to negotiate such licenses on a RAND License (as defined below) basis. Adobe expressly reserves all rights it may have in any of its intellectual property. 

Apple's patent, however ludicrous, enables Adobe and most of the other
contributors to renege on RF licensing.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and I have only read the abstract of
Apple's patent, which only describes ideas that are fully described
in earlier literature such as the classic Foley and van Dam textbook
and in the Porter-Duff article referenced in the SVG spec.

I agree with the suggestion that SVG 1.0 be withdrawn or suspended,
pending resolution of this patent discussion.

Glenn
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 08:20:02 GMT

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