Re: Is Apple's patent valid?

> From: Chris Lilley (chris@w3.org)
> Date: Thu, Oct 04 2001

> As other people have also pointed out, this is unclear. My understanding
> had been (from talking with Adobe before they made their statement) that
> Adobe were happy to give RF license to anyone, including the general
> public and WG members who also gave RF. Their issue was with other WG
> members who gave RAND. This is perhaps because, in the beta draft of the
> PPF, the reciprocity clase was not as clear as it is now, I don't know.
> Anyway they were trying to define their own reciprocity - RF to those
> who give RF, RAND to those who give RAND.

Chris my reading of the Adobe license shows differently. I'm not saying
you weren't given those assurances. But that is not how Adobe's
declaration reads.

To revise:

"In the event that all current members of the SVG 1.0 Working Group agree to negotiate Royalty-Free Licenses (as defined below)
under any Essential Claims (as defined below) reading on the Specification to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import portions of
implementations required by the Specification, Adobe Systems Incorporated and its affiliates (collectively, "Adobe" or "Member") agree
to negotiate Royalty-Free Licenses on such terms."

The significant word here is "all". All current members of the SVG 1.0 Working Group did _not_ negotiate RF Licenses.

Therefore the second sentence applies:

"In the event that such members do not so agree, Adobe agrees to negotiate such
licenses on a RAND License (as defined below) basis. Adobe expressly reserves all rights it may have in any of its intellectual property."

It appears you have a RAND license from Adobe. Given the assurances
Adobe gave you it may not be difficult to get them to rewrite the
section.

Regards,
Adam

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 10:11:36 UTC