Re: WPWG On NOT abandoning the CG specs (was Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group)

Perhaps some form of advocate methods?

That rule is not the same in other regions, yet even if advice were
provided then it seems the same issue applies?

A method must exist to assess Alternatives, perhaps externally?

Broken is an understatement imho.

I suspect the characteristics may be different. I also ponder whether
you've produced 'prior art' that may not have been used due to broader
competing interests that may, potentially, be found to have a
counterproductive outcome.

Tim.H.

On Mon., 26 Sep. 2016, 9:02 pm Manu Sporny, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 09/26/2016 04:27 AM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> > I see https://www.w3.org/2016/08/wpwg-pag/Overview.html#disclosures
> >
> > I would like to understand whether and/or how this problem may look
> > different (variations) if the CG specs were used rather than the
> > alternative supplied replacing the CG specs, et.al <http://et.al>.
>
> Hey Tim, I don't know because our legal counsel has suggested that no
> one from our organization read the asserted patents or PAG deliberation
> until they come back to us with a suggestion. If we do, we could open
> ourselves up to a treble damages lawsuit among other things. This is why
> we don't discuss patents in any of the CG/IG/WGs. Yes, the patent system
> is broken, but even looking at that material could unnecessarily open us
> up to very nasty legal implications.
>
> -- manu
>
>