- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:20:18 -0800
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com > > wrote: > >> On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote: >> >>> >>> The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big >>> players don't want to take the perceived risk (their decision) >>> they'd still be 100% within the spec. Thus I fail to see why there >>> was need for action. >> >> There's a question within the W3C Process whether patents that are >> covered by a SHOULD via a reference are granted a RF license >> similarly to anything that MUST be implemented. Both Nokia and MS >> raised concerns about this relating to publishing the spec as a FPWD. > > And these concerns are total rubbish (as pointed out by Apple and > others): FWIW that was my personal opinion based on reading the patent policy, not an official position of Apple Inc. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 17:20:18 UTC