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

Mostly minor comments on 14 Nov 2002 Patent Policy

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:12:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3DDE73A2.9030208@w3.org>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
CC: ij@w3.org

Danny,

Please find below my comments (not representing any group)
on the 14 Nov 2002 Patent Policy [1]. I found the document
to be very understandable (and still mercifully short).
My comments are primarily editorial.

   - Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114

=========
Non-editorial
=========

1) 5.1 PAG Composition.

The AB has explicitly chosen not to include "Domains" or "Domain
Leaders" in the Process Document, as they are management
instruments. I recommend reducing Team participation in a PAG
to "One or more Team representatives".

2) 5.4 PAG Conclusion.

"Outcomes 4 or 5 require an AC review and Director's decision."

[Where 4 = terminate WG.  5 = Rescind the spec]

There are two inconsistencies with the Process Document:

  1) In the Process Document, the Director can terminate a WG
  without AC review, but the decision is subject to appeal by the
  AC.

  2) The new Process Document includes a process for "Deprecating"
  a Recommendation. Can the Patent Policy say "deprecate" instead
  of "rescind"?

I suggest changing "Outcomes ... decision" to "Outcomes 4
and 5 follow the relevant provisions of the W3C Process Document"
and including references.

=========
Editorial
=========

1) You and I have already spoken about using the term
"WG participant" in a manner consistent with the Process
Document (which may need tweaking).

2) Section 2.1: I propose changing:

   "Only the affirmative act of joining a RF Working Group, or
   agreeing to other licensing terms, will obligate a Member to
   the licensing commitments described here. Mere Membership in
   W3C alone, without other factors, does not give rise to the RF
   licensing obligation.

to

   "Only the affirmative act of joining a RF Working Group, or
   agreeing to other licensing terms, obligate a participant to
   the licensing commitments described here. Thus, Membership
   in W3C alone, without other factors, does not give rise to the
   RF licensing obligation."

Does the phrase "other factors" refer to anything other than
joining a WG? If so, please be more explicit about what those
factors are (or link to them). If not, you can probably delete
", without other factors," for clarity.

3) 3. W3C RF Licensing Requirements.

I find the phrase "to all worldwide" in "1. shall be available to
all worldwide, whether or not they are W3C Members;" to be
jarring, as my ear wants to hear "to all worldwide [entities]"
or "to all, worldwide." Another option:

   "1. shall be available worldwide to all entities, whether or
   not those entities are W3C Members;"

4) 4.1 Disclosure requests.

I suggest changing "any party suspected of having knowledge"
to "any party believed to have knowledge".

Also, the new Process Document emphasizes "transitions" rather
than "maturity levels". I think that the Patent Policy should
refer to those transitions rather than the associated maturity
levels.

5) Definition of essential claim.

I find the phrase "Member (or a licensor or licensee, with
reference to entities other than Members)" more confusing than
helpful. Why not just say "licensor"? I think as written the
definition places undue emphasis on patents held by Members,
and may cause people to think that non-Member implementers are
not covered.




-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 13:13:01 GMT

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