- From: <mark@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:09:08 +0100
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Cc: mark@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk
> > RAND already being assumed for SVG > > From: Daniel Phillips (phillips@bonn-fries.net) > Date: Mon, Oct 01 2001 > > Next message: Michael Ellerman: "Time for a new W3C, this one's been > hijacked" > * Previous message: Mr Confucious Say: "RAND Policy" > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists] > * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ] > _________________________________________________________________ > >From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> >To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org >Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:11:16 +0200 >Message-Id: <20011002021116Z16082-2757+2751@humbolt.nl.linux.org> >Subject: RAND already being assumed for SVG > >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? > I think the W3C has got itself into a nasty corner and is struggling to find a way out of it. It is _clearly_ unacceptable to have companies wait until a work is finished and then claim they owned it all along. I think that the W3C should be looking for a formal statement from every employer that any delegate working on or proposing text (or whatever) for any W3C standard should produce a legally binding written commitment that there will be *no* patent claim associated with that work. Any organisation which cannot do this should be restrained from making any submission. This does open a second can of worms, which is how to prove that the submission from eg., Apple doesn't in fact contain some of Kodak's patented work, but I would have thought a properly worded statement as above should cover this issue. I wonder if the SVG proposed standard should be either abandoned or at least completely re-worked to avoid any encumbrances. RF standards are the only ones which work in practice. Mark K.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 13:01:11 UTC