W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > July 2002

re: Summary of 1 July 2002 Patent Policy Working Group Teleconference

From: <dank@kegel.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 12:24:19 -0700
Message-ID: <3D2B3863.B4B0D402@kegel.com>
To: "www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org" <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>, Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>

Susan Lesch wrote:
> Twenty people attended the 1 July 2002 Patent Policy Working Group
> (PPWG) teleconference. The meeting was devoted to a new RAND
> exception proposal circulated by three participants and the Chair.
> 
> When non-royalty-free IPR is discovered in a W3C Working Group, a
> Patent Advisory Group (PAG) might have a number of possible
> outcomes. The proposal suggests that the Working Group's
> specification could be split in two. "Core" work to be licensed
> royalty-free would be produced as a W3C Recommendation.
> "Extensions" that may require royalties could be done at W3C or by
> another standards organization.

If I understand correctly, the W3C's position on RAND as described in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20020226/#sec-Exception
which says
 "In the event a patent has been disclosed that may be essential, 
 but is not available on RF terms, then a Patent Advisory Group 
 (PAG) will be launched to resolve the conflict."
implies that RAND will be used only when a patent is truly
essential.  But the proposal you mentioned above talks about
extensions.  By definition, an extension is not essential.
Therefore the W3C's existing public statements don't support
the kind of exception proposal you mentioned.

You are aware you're treading on very dangerous ground here, I'm sure.
Care to identify the three participants who are eager to
introduce extensions that require royalty payments?
- Dan
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 15:20:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:49 GMT