- From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:23:33 +0000
- To: "'Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich'" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
But later is not the same people. A CG creates a Community Spec where a participant has personal knowledge of patents that contain essential claims. A WG adopts the Community Spec. Someone gets sued for implementing. The disclosure rules are lightweight. They involve personal knowledge, not any patent search. They prevent the situation that someone knows technology being added to a spec is encumbered but the group producing the spec does not. For the reason Charles mentioned, there should be a disclosure requirement in CGs ( based on personal knowledge like for W3C members and TRs). >-----Original Message----- >From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich [mailto:k.scheppe@telekom.de] >Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:35 AM >To: public-w3process@w3.org >Subject: AW: Patent Policy issues... > >I think it is simply due to the idea that CGs are not meant to produce a >recommendation from the onset. >This was done make entry for potential participants easier. > >Rec track can come later, by transitioning into a WG at which point regular >process applies. > > >> Anyone know why there aren't disclosure obligations for Member of CGs? >> (why members of a CG don't have personal knowledge disclosure >> requirements similar to those for any W3C member reading any TR >> draft.) > > >-- Kai
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 10:24:06 UTC