- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:12:49 -0400
- To: "David Wall" <dwall@Yozons.com>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Monday 29 July 2002 01:41 pm, David Wall wrote: > Is there any projected date to know how encumbered XML Signatures will be > to previous IP? There are comments about a few patents, but is there a > process to determine if there's infringement, and if so, what the royalty > requirements will be? > > A standard that's encumbered by IP issues will surely fail to be adopted > widely, so it's important to know when it really makes sense to use XML > Signatures in an application. We'd hate to adopt this and then suffer > similar issues that surrounded WAP/WML when one party may require > royalties and the like to use an "open" protocol. XML Signature operated under an IETF (and older W3C) style of policy by which one solicits disclosures, and focuses on the implementations without taking a position on the validity, infringement, nor licensing terms of such claims. In that context, I'm not aware of anyone claiming infringement, nor the exercise of a license specific to the specification nor its ~15 implementations, including 3 open source implementations. This is about as strong an assurance one can obtain with such a policy. This does not mitigate against someone at a later date from claiming infringement -- as someone recently did with the ISO JPEG standard [1]! However, not even the new draft policy the W3C is working on (which furthers clear disclosures, royalty free licenses from WG participants, reciprocal defense, etc.) could prevent that. The only defenses against the unconscionable deployment of submarine patents by "predators" is to rely upon public pressure, to rescind the standard, or to attack the patent claim... [1] http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-945735.html
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 14:12:53 UTC