- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 06:38:39 -0400
- To: "ext Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: "'Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich'" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 3/13/12 6:23 AM, ext Carr, Wayne wrote: > 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). Yeah I agree. It seems like a relatively large bug in the CG PP to not require disclosures for CG specs. IJ - why was this done? -Thanks, Art
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 10:39:18 UTC