Re: False patent claims

Hi Joe,

Absolutely agree and I apologize to the forum for any disruptions. Rigo and
I have agreed that there will be NO further comments by me on this forum
regarding the patent. I will honor that agreement.

Regards,


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>
Date:  Monday, June 18, 2012 10:12 AM
To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc:  Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: False patent claims

> (forgive me for intruding... I'm not a WG member and just observing.)
> 
> Hi Peter, 
> 
> Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but the purpose of the W3C PAG process is
> to handle exceptions, so that all WG members can continue to work towards a
> standard that can be licensed under RF terms (i.e., non-discriminatory and
> royalty-free), without having to also think about potential patent issues in
> addition to the substance of the standard.
> 
> And the PAG inherits the public nature of the WG, so it will be public, just
> not mixed up with the substance of the WG until the PAG needs to interact with
> the WG (e.g., surveying WG members, reporting to the WG, etc.).
> 
> best, Joe
> 
> 
> On Monday, June 18, 2012, Peter Cranstone  wrote:
>> Nope.
>> 
>> It should be out in the public for all to see. Just like Mozilla has done.
>> 
>> 
>> Peter
>> ___________________________________
>> Peter J. Cranstone
>> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org <javascript:;> >
>> Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:42 AM
>> To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com <javascript:;> >
>> Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org <javascript:;> >, W3 Tracking
>> <public-tracking@w3.org <javascript:;> >
>> Subject: Re: False patent claims
>> 
>>> >I would like to repeat my request to keep patent discussion off this
>>> >mailing
>>> >list.
>>> >
>>> >Thank you,
>>> >--
>>> >Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org <javascript:;> >  (@roessler)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On 2012-06-18, at 16:39 +0200, Peter Cranstone wrote:
>>> >
>>>> >> For those who are interested in following along. Here's Mozilla's take
>>>> >>on
>>>> >> the Patent claim: https://wiki.mozilla.org/DNT_false_patent_claim
>>>> >>
>>>> >> They go on to sayŠ
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Based upon a thorough analysis by independent patent counsel, Mozilla
>>>> >> concluded that the Œ206 patent did not cover the W3C DNT specification
>>>> >> because the specification did not satisfy all of the limitations of the
>>>> >> claims.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Maybe Mozilla would care to add a little more detail in exactly how
>>>> >>adding
>>>> >> a privacy header to the protocol did not satisfy all of the limitations
>>>> >>of
>>>> >> the claims and in doing so share their complete analysis.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Peter
>>>> >> ___________________________________
>>>> >> Peter J. Cranstone
>>>> >> 720.663.1752 <tel:720.663.1752>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>> 
>> 
>>