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

Re: SVG ad inf.

From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 15:11:08 +0200
To: F J Franklin <F.J.Franklin@sheffield.ac.uk>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011006131109Z16119-2758+1288@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On October 6, 2001 02:50 pm, F J Franklin wrote:
> In response to:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0998.html
> 
> Chris Lilley wrote:
> > This is why in my own, personal feedback on this list
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0060.html
> > 
> > I asked that once a specification was at the Proposed Recommendation
> > stage, the holders of any declared patents be required to pick one of
> > several choices including withdrawing the patent as unrelated, oferingan
> > RF license on it, or stating the exact fees to be charged for RAND *and*
> > the specific sections of the specification that were affected.
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> While personally I believe the W3C should have a policy for insisting
> on RF licensing of all patents that affect a specification, I would be
> satisfied with the amendments you have proposed.

Just to clarify, please note this essential detail of Chris Lilley's
proposal:

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0060.html

    "So for each patent that is listed, the member should be required to make, 
    at the time of Proposed Recommendation, a determination of the 
    applicability (or not, see below) and choose one of

    [...]
    e) state that it is essential, and
      i)  describe the exact part of the specification that makes it
          essential
      ii) provide the exact terms of the RAND license including fees and
          other conditions.

    The reason this has to happen at Proposed Recommendation is that the
    Membership can then have the option, in case e), say in their review to
    return the Proposed Recommendation to Working Draft to remove the part
    of the specification that requires the patent. In the case of e), the 
    specification should in any case not move to Recommendation but instead a 
    PAG should be formed."

My interpretation is that, according to this proposal, no Recommendation would
be finalized if it was considered to be subject to claims of a member's patent
for which an RF license has not been offered.

--
Daniel
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 09:11:23 GMT

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