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

Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it)

From: Claude Zervas <claude@utlco.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 00:30:35 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.20011006235609.01271098@pop3.norton.antivirus>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Cc: chris@w3.org
> Chris Lilley wrote:
>....
>You have not shown that SVG is encumbered. 

But neither you sir, nor the W3C, have shown that the SVG is ***NOT*** encumbered.
This makes the SVG proposal suspect and unattractive to implementors until the
remaining RANDs have been converted to RFs.
I would be very hesitant to invest a lot of development effort when there is a non-negligible
risk of litigation (and hence financial ruin) down the road.
As long as there are RANDs attached to a W3C proposal there exists such risks. I don't
care how much anybody bleats on about how the patents may not encumber
the proposal. We really have no idea what the patent holders may do in the future. IBM
or Adobe may seem friendly enough right now, but if the past is any indication one would
be a fool to count on a continuing benevolence.

All W3C proposals should be left unencumbered by at least the W3C member corporations.
If a member will not give up a RAND then the proposal should be tossed. Patents are a
way for BigCos to monopolize, and hence stifle, innovation. To support this implicitly by
allowing RANDs attached to proposals is shortsighted and does not seem to fit the W3C
charter.

- Claude
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 03:36:41 GMT

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