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: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:23:28 +0200
Message-ID: <3BC0ABB0.2573E33@w3.org>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
CC: Jason Antony <jemvai777@yahoo.com.au>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On October 6, 2001 04:11 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> > You have not shown that SVG is encumbered.
> This document indicates that SVG is encumbered:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html

I get the impression that you are no longer reading what I write. This
is sad, since we did seem to be getting somewhere a day or two ago.

> There are two possibilities:
>   1) The document is right, 

The document is indeed right, the companies mentioned have decalared the
patent claims listed and the licenses listed.

What you are meaning by "right" is "and W3C agreeds that all those
patents are valid and that they apply to the SVG specification". I
repeatedly pointed this out but you now seem to be ignoring this again.
So the document is not "right" in the sense that you are calling

> and W3C has endorsed a patent-encumbered
>      standard that blesses the right of participants in the creation of
>      that standard to collect royalties on the use of it

That would be your interpretation if you continue to assert that the
patents are valid. 

I challenge you to prove that, actually, because the more that people
such as yourself claim that a patent is valid, the more evidence is
available in court. You *are* aware that continued assertion of validity
of these patents is directly harmful to open source implementors? 

So either provide some evidence to back up your claims, or retract them.

Personaly I am more convinced by the opinion of actual graphic experts,
who have discussed this issue in technical detail,  than your baseless
and content-free assertions - you have not offered a single piece of
evidence that any of the patents are applicable or that any of the
patents are valid.

> or
>    2) The document is wrong, and the acceptance of the SVG Recommendation
>       was premature because it is unfinished.
> Which do you choose: patent encumbered or prematurely accepted?  

Thats rather like the question "on what date did you stop beating your
wife" - it carefully precludes other options and is overtly

> It is one or the other.  In either case the SVG recommendation is horribly flawed.

Thank you for your opinion. I disagree but since you ignore any points I
make and retreat into satisfying but simplistic positions, I see no
point in further discussion with you.

I am happy to discuss the point with others who are interested in an
actual, two-way discussion.

Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 15:23:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:44 UTC