W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: [Fwd: Re: I-D for the PATCH method]

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:32:37 -0700
Message-Id: <7F154E0F-88F1-4562-AE91-0E1D7DFC9BAC@cs.ucsc.edu>
To: WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

> Jim Whitehead didn't think that there would be any issue with the IPR
> requirements for the gdiff patch format. But if anyone knows  
> better, we'd
> like to know.

Specifically, we have public disclosure of GDiff in 1997 in:


A fairly brief search by myself of the US patent database (I am  
assuming that any patent application on this matter would have been  
approved by now -- the patent office is slow, but not that slow) was  
not able to find any patents on this difference format. This is  
somewhat consistent with the submission statement by Marimba:

This states:

Marimba, Inc. agrees not to assert any Patent Claim against any third- 
party arising from the use, manufacture, sale, distribution, or  
implementation of any portion of any product, method, or procedure  
which is necessary to implement GDIFF. Patent Claim means claim(s) of  
a patent or patent application which are owned or controlled by  
Marimba, Inc. that must be infringed in order to make, use or  
implement a product, method, or procedure that implements GDIFF.

(Although this statement does suggest they had at least considered  
filing a patent.)

While IANAL, this appears to be a clear case of public disclosure,  
with no subsequent patent filing within a year of disclosure. As a  
result, I believe this technology is now public domain.

However, I note that there is some ambiguity concerning copyright of  
the specification, and so it would be best to limit the amount of  
text used verbatim from the GDiff specification.

- Jim
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 18:43:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:40 UTC