- From: David Dailey <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:52:22 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "Joe D'Andrea" <jdandrea@gmail.com>,<public-html@w3.org>
At 03:47 AM 4/18/2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: >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.) Yes, moi non plus. That's the conclusion I'm converging on too, I think. >>(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 PorterDuff >compositing. The PorterDuff 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. HTML5 is not a product but the things in which it appears are likely to be. If I were a judge it might take some convincing to conclude that one piece of software for drawing that is named <canvas> does not dilute the mark of another piece of software for drawing named Canvas. It may be that ACD (Deneba's) product does not have a trademark claim on "Canvas" There are 326 trademarks listed as active by USPTO having the word canvas contained in the word mark, and I don't know if ACD is among them or not. >>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. Agreed. >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. In an earlier post on an related issue, I believe, I cited a reference to a post by Chris Wilson (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1098.html) where he seems to be imply the same conclusion that we are (I hope I'm not putting words in Chris' mouth). The trademark issue, though, it seems, is a lot simpler: 1. Does ACD/Deneba hold a trademark on Canvas? 2. If so has anybody asked them if they would care if someone built a drawing thingy named canvas in HTML? 3. If not, should somebody ask them? 4. If not, would a average garden-variety trademark lawyer think that a claim of dilution by putative trademark holder would be tenable? If the answer to any of these questions is preemptive, then <canvas> it would seem can be discussed on its merits, without any of these nasty issues. cheers, David
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 11:52:09 UTC