- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:50:30 -0400
- To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- CC: "'Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich'" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <IJ@w3.org>
[adding Ian] On 3/13/2012 6:23 AM, 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. I agree that this is not water-tight. But we also need to recognize that it is an improvement and that nothing is water-tight. There are other ways that new ideas come to W3C, and they also are not water-tight. They may come from ad hoc standards groups that have no RF commitments. Or a troll can put a patented idea in discussion, it gets implemented in Webkit, gets wide adoption, and then shows up at a W3C spec. On balance, I think CGs are an improvement. > > 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). I ask Ian for his comments. When we introduced CGs last year, we also said that we wanted to learn from a year's usage and then enhance. If there is a consensus to enhance further - we can do so. > >> -----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 12:50:46 UTC