Re: [Issue-152] Note for Draft Process Document

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 11:22 , Stephen Zilles <> wrote:
> Comments in-line below
> Steve Z
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Singer []
>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:49 AM
>> To:
>> Cc: Stephen Zilles
>> Subject: Re: [Issue-152] Note for Draft Process Document
>> We discussed a two-step process: allow the WG to assert that changes are
>> purely editorial, and then have a (short) period for any AC member to object,
>> whereupon an exclusion period would automatically start.  IF an exclusion
>> period happens, this takes longer, of course, and only if the ‘short’ period is
>> significantly shorter than an exclusion period do we win at all.
>> Other ideas are welcome.
> [SZ] I recall this discussion. The catch is that it depends on an AC member knowing enough to trigger an exclusion. I have worked for companies that active discourage knowledge of patents by their employees. That would mean that an AC rep for such a company would not have the knowledge to trigger an exclusion period.

Not at all.

For an exclusion period, I ask my IPR department.

I can as easily ask them “do you think we need an exclusion period, because either we or someone else may have IPR on this ‘editorial’ change?”

I don’t see where you get the assumption that a simple “is this editorial?” question has to be answered by the AC rep without consultation.

> It seems safer to just have the exclusion period which would provide greater patent protection because expiration of the exclusion period would require any patent owned by a group Member to have a royalty free license in the future. That is why I think the issue reduces down to (a) require exclusion period or (b) do not require exclusion period. 

I certainly agree a one-step process is (a) simpler and (b) faster if you actually ever use the exclusion period and (c) maybe faster if the ‘do you need an exclusion period?’ question is open for about as long as an exclusion period would be.

I lean towards the ‘publish and have an exclusion period’ route, as if the WG is doing their job right, most of the time nothing will happen. But it ‘looks heavy’.  But maybe we need to do more to make exclusion periods etc. look lighter.

>>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 19:14 , Stephen Zilles <> wrote:
>>> Wayne,
>>> Thank you for pointing out that I forgot to say that the note is to explain an
>> open issue (152) and would be removed as soon as the issue is resolved.
>> Hence, it would go in the next draft, but would disappear before the final draft
>> of Process2015.
>>> Steve Z
>>> From: Wayne Carr []
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 3:15 PM
>>> To: Stephen Zilles;
>>> Subject: Re: [Issue-152] Note for Draft Process Document
>>> I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "attachment".  Is it to put all that
>> text in the Note below in the Process Document?  If so, that doesn't seem
>> good.  Way too much text for a fairly obscure subject.
>>> Wherever that Note would be published, I think there's a problem with the
>> text.  The proposed Note seems to be stating conclusions about whether there
>> would have been infringement in the examples.  We shouldn't have a note
>> implying whether anything  would have infringed or not.  i.e. don't have text
>> like "patent infringement was avoid" or "thus avoiding a patent infringement".
>> There can be multiple different reasons why something isn't a concern.
>> Sometimes there is a trivial change that makes it so you don't have to bother
>> explaining the dozen other reasons it isn't a concern. Changes like the
>> examples don't necessarily mean anything infringed - they could be just the
>> simplest reason it isn't a problem.  Future versions of specs may want to go
>> back in the same area so Notes shouldn't be stating conclusions about
>> infringement.
>>> Another approach to the Note could be: "The purpose of returning to
>> Proposed Recommendation and an Advisory Committee Review is to draw
>> attention to the proposed changes before they become part of the
>> Recommendation. A particular focus of that review would be to detect
>> instances where changes were misclassified as not affecting conformance, in
>> which case the result of AC Review should be to return it to Candidate Review
>> and a patent exclusion period."
>>> On 2015-02-28 15:58, Stephen Zilles wrote:
>>> Per the request of the Advisory Board, the following note is proposed for
>> attachment to the second paragraph of section 7.7.2 Revising a
>> Recommendation to explain the only open issue on the current draft of
>> Process2015. [The proposed text has been hyperlinked inline to make it easier
>> to copy.]
>>> Steve Z
>>> ======NOTE=======
>>> Note: It has been asserted that Process2014 has made the publication of
>> Edited Recommendations more difficult in the case when they only have
>> corrections that do not affect conformance and that this change was un-
>> intended. This is Issue-152 on the Revising the W3C Process Community Group
>> Tracker. For this kind of change, Process2005 does not require any “technical
>> review of the proposed changes.” This also holds for Process2014, but an
>> additional step, publication as a Proposed Recommendation, has been added.
>>> The essence of the discussion has been around whether it is possible to
>> reliably identify “corrections that do not affect conformance.” It seems that a
>> Working Group should be able to perform this assessment (and has been
>> responsible for doing so in the past). However, several recent Patent Advisory
>> Groups (PAGs) have shown that subtle changes in a text can have significant
>> Patent implications. The Touch Events Specification PAG noted that the Touch
>> Events Specification does not fit an ellipse (as required by the patent
>> considered) to touched pixels, relying only on a single coordinate point (thus
>> avoiding a patent infringement). In a similar analysis, a patent infringement
>> was avoid by changing the name of a method being used. These examples
>> show the slippery slope of editorial changes.
>>> Based on these examples, a number of people felt that any textual changes
>> should have an associated exclusion announcement on the changed text. That
>> puts the onus of checking whether any of the changes might trigger a patent
>> problem on owner of the possibly infringed patents.  Any reviewer other than
>> the patent holder may not have sufficient information to recognize the
>> problem. If the 60 day review period passes without any exclusions that is
>> good, and, if an exclusion occurred, then the change could certainly affect
>> conformance. The essence of the argument is that getting a better Patent
>> assessment prior to re-publishing a Recommendation is worth the added delay
>> of an Exclusion period.
>>> This does, however, elongate the process of updating a Recommendation
>> with purely editorial changes. It has been suggested that it would suffice to
>> have the Team Contact (as a disinterested expert in the group) review the
>> changes prior to re-publication as a Recommendation, thus speeding up
>> editorial updates.
>>> No clear consensus position between these two positions has yet emerged.
>>> =====END NOTE========
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 19:46:05 UTC