- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:11:16 +0200
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
This is a heads-up for everybody reading this list. It appears that the SVG
(Scalable Vector Graphics) working group is already conducting itself as if
RAND were a fait accompli. Here's an extract from a patent statement by the
working group:
(http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html)
* The majority of SVG working group members are providing a Royalty
Free license for SVG 1.0.
* There are four organisations who offered a RAND license for SVG 1.0.
Examining each in detail:
* Kodak have publically stated that while they are unable to
provide a RF license for their existing IP, they believe that
they have no essential claims on the SVG 1.0 specification.
Furthermore, they participate in an open-source effort to
implement the complete SVG 1.0 specification.
* Apple informed the SVG 1.0 Working Group very early in the SVG
1.0 process of the patent they listed in their license statement.
The SVG Working Group made a concerted effort to produce a
specification that does not require implementors to infringe the
patent.
* The other two RAND licenses were from IBM and Quark, both of whom
have not announced any patents since the request for IP licenses
was issued (in May 2001).
How do we interpret this? Apple, for example, appears to be prepared
to collect a toll on SVG according to this criterion: "Existence of a
non-infringing alternative shall be judged based on the state-of-the-art at
the time the specification becomes a Recommendation." I interpret that to
mean Apple will sit in the woods until the specification has been
essentially finalized, then announce their claims on it. This sounds
somewhat less than forthcoming.
I have to ask: do people know that SVG is encumbered? Do we need SVG if it's
encumbered? Just what exactly does the W3C think it's doing?
--
Daniel
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 22:11:22 UTC