W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-games@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Scope Proposal

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:04:20 +0100
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Cc: Boaz Sender <boaz@bocoup.com>, Lars Knudsen <larsgk@gmail.com>, Grady Laksmono <glaksmono@zynga.com>, Andrew Baker <andrew_j_baker2@hotmail.com>, "gmthundercat@gmail.com" <gmthundercat@gmail.com>, "public-games@w3.org" <public-games@w3.org>, "scheib@google.com" <scheib@google.com>, Conceiro Igueregui, Alexander <alexander.conceiro@tecnalia.com>
Message-ID: <956A2CC1C87F4CA090F185A9C804FE79@marcosc.com>
(Sorry to be a PITA)

On Monday, 14 November 2011 at 13:46, Francois Daoust wrote:

> Something can only become an Essential Claim by being part of a Specification.
We will be making recommendations to other WGs about changes they should make to their specs. We may propose solutions that may be included into those specifications: hence, we are generating IPR. 
> No specification means no essential claim, so the assertion looks good. Instead of a raw "there will not be", I would have proposed "the group does not anticipate producing material subject to" to avoid having to ask ourselves whether the legal assertion is valid (yes/no questions tend not to have a yes/no answer when legal experts get asked ;)) but the intent is the same and my reply comes in a bit late, so scope is good as-is.

Does the above matter? Consider. 

1. CG identifies issue X. 
2. CG comes up with awesome solution Y. 
3. CG proposes Y to Working Group Z. 
4. Working Group Z includes Y wholesale into their spec A.  
5. Unknowing CG member has patent on Y.   

Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 13:04:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:27 UTC