W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Precision of <canvas> rendering (was: Re: Formal definition of HTML5)

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:47:43 +0300
Message-Id: <BBFAFAE0-38E2-4907-BCF3-1432689E20C5@iki.fi>
Cc: "Joe D'Andrea" <jdandrea@gmail.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>

On Apr 18, 2007, at 03:06, Dailey, David P. wrote:

> Then I expect that if we use what you've said here to answer to my  
> question about further patent entanglements associated with the  
> rendering (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/ 
> 0975.html) , then we would predict no additional entanglements.

I am not a lawyer. (Personally, I am not worried.)

> (I'm assuming the things you mention are all tried and true and  
> stem from algorithms developed in the early 1980's or before).

PostScript dates from 1982. The PDF 1.4 imaging model extended the  
PostScript imaging model with transparency and Porter–Duff  
compositing. The Porter–Duff paper is from 1984.

> May one assume that Deneba does not see a JavaScript API for  
> drawing as conflicting with a drawing program of the same name?

I am not a trademark lawyer, but "canvas" is a generic English word  
and <canvas> as part of HTML5 is not a marketing name of a product.

> I'm just trying to convince myself that any reasons to argue  
> against the <canvas> tag are independent of legalities.

If you are concerned about the participants to this WG holding  
relevant patents, if anything, you should argue *for* publishing the  
<canvas> spec through this WG.

If you are concerned about patents held by parties that are not  
participating in this WG, the W3C Patent Policy does not help.  
However, letting unsubstantiated patent fears stop work is entirely  

> 'Cause if not, then it seems like we'd have to postpone discussion  
> of it all 'til after some sort of legal consideration.

In general, due to the nature of software idea patents and due to the  
U.S. statutory damages on knowing infringement, it is not feasible to  
research if every idea is patented or not and letting the fear stop  
real work would be paralyzing to a WG like this.

TINLA, of course.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 07:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC