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

Re: Apple's SVG patent

From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:16:34 +0200
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011005161629Z16694-2759+479@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On October 5, 2001 05:55 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> > > > I for one, would be happy to wait a while for SVG if it means
> > > > that I can get an SVG without patent encumbrances.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned before, I claim that there are no patent encumbrances.
> > 
> > Well, this is wonderful.  Then the SVG recommendation should be revised
> > immediately to reflect that.
> 
> Its only my claim, not W3Cs claim.

What steps are required to make this W3C's claim as well?

> > > > and determining for each whether RF licensing is available.  Then
> > > > analyze the extent to which the remaining non-RF claims apply to the 
> > > > recommendation.  Next, change the recommendation to avoid infringing 
> > > > any such claims.
> > >
> > > Ok, done already.
> > 
> > If that has been done then what are we arguing about? 
> 
> It has been done in that there was a Patent Advisory Group for SVG (as
> provided for in PPF)  and they looked at the claims and the licenses and
> could ave advised waiting or changing the spec, but instead advised
> going ahead.

How can I find the names and affiliations of the members of the Patent 
Advisory Group for SVG?

> > In that case, the only
> > thing remaining to be done is to remove the remaining references to RAND
> > licensing from the recommendation.
> 
> Again, you see the list of patent claims as a list of agreed
> infringements. They can't be removed; they can't be unclaimed.

If some are irrelevant then they should be removed and the patent statement 
updated accordingly.

--
Daniel
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:16:31 GMT

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