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: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 21:29:06 +0200
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: Jason Antony <jemvai777@yahoo.com.au>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011008192859Z16443-17200+1567@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On October 8, 2001 07:32 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > 
> > On October 7, 2001 09:23 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Yes, that was before you made it clear that you see RAND licensing as a
> > necessary part of W3C's patent policy.
> Really? That is interesting. Can you point to where I said "RAND is
> necessary"? I believe I said that it was better than nothing.

I inferred it from this exchange:

  > The way I read it, Chris Lilley's proposal does not permit a
  > recommendation to be finalized if it incorporates RAND licensing.
  > Perhaps Chris would be willing to clarify that point.

  Oh, it does, as long as there is a strikingly good reason for doing so
  for that individual case. If for example the specification relates to
  hardware (in Europe, patents are allowed on hardware but not on
  software) then, since hardware is sold and there is no public domain or
  freely-given hardware, if the implementors of the specification agreed
  that the fees were acceptable to them then it might still be a good idea
  to go ahead. 

I would be only too happy to learn that I inferred incorrectly, and that you 
really would be willing to support ammendments to the PPF such that no 
recommendation could be finalized if it relies on RAND licensing of patent 
claims.  By implication, any patent claim that is determined to impinge on 
the proposal would need to be licensed on RF terms before the proposal could 
proceed to recommendation.

If we agreed on that, then we could proceed to a fruitful discussion of how 
the PPF could be ammended so that its policies and procedures are best suited 
to achieving the desired result.

In case there is any question about it, I wholeheartedly agree with you that 
it is crucially important to identify IP claims early, and in particular, to 
identify member's claims.  There is much that could be done to improve the 
way the PPF supports that process, without relying on a RAND option.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 15:29:13 UTC

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