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: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:09:41 +0200
To: Claude Zervas <claude@utlco.com>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Cc: chris@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011007190927Z16316-17200+1324@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On October 7, 2001 09:30 am, Claude Zervas wrote:
> > 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.

Note that it is not enough just to ignore SVG and not implement it.


> 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 15:09:31 GMT

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