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


From: Steve Cox <SteveC@RCSUK.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:15:45 +0100
Message-ID: <10FAB3591BF1D3118ED000600871513B3D7B@comms.rcsuk.co.uk>
To: "'www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org'" <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
I agree with you.

The initial declaration of patent interest from W3C members proposed in the
RAND documentation would be useful but for identifying  possible reasons to
modify or ABANDON a draft standard proposal - rather than allowing for a
RAND patent to be included.

For example, with the SVG draft, once it was identifed that the patent
interest from Kodak and Apple would not be RF compliant, the group would
strive to find a solution to allow the standard to be RF - which in this
case it did. However, if it had been that the standard could not be royaly
free, then the standard would be abandoned and suitable alternatives
considered if possible.

This way, the standards remain open and are actively developed to be. By
attempting to have member patent holders provide a RF solution, their
membership and direction are 'guided' into an open framework. However, the
difference with the the original proposal will ensure no member is tempted
to attempt to place a patent into a standard for any perceived
self-interest. If such a member values that work, then they would have no
problem in promoting their work individually, rather than having it placed
as a W3C standard.

S Cox
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 11:35:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:44 UTC