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

Re: Apple's SVG patent

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:30:30 +0200
Message-ID: <3BBDE026.6FA76379@w3.org>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org


Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> On October 5, 2001 05:55 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> > > > 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?

I am not sure, and am trying to find out.

> > > 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?

The names are not publically available. As described in the PPF, they
were the AC Representatives (or their delegates) of each of the members
of the working group, ie the companies listed on the patent and
licensepage 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.

Only an individual developer can decide that a particular claim is
applicable or not to their code.

I don't see a way for W3C to guarantee that a claim is definitely not
applicable. I would like W3C to be able to offer an opinion that it is
not required for implementing SVG. This does after allseem to be the
pont of early disclosure - so the working group can evaluate the
relevance of a claim and decide what to do about it. It seems only
reasonable that the working group shold in turm be able to make a claim
that it has avoided or does not infringe a particular patent.

-- 
Chris
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:30:45 GMT

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