- From: Steve Cox <SteveC@RCSUK.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:15:45 +0100
- To: "'www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org'" <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
I agree with you. The initial declaration of patent interest from W3C members proposed in the RAND documentation would be useful but for identifying possible reasons to modify or ABANDON a draft standard proposal - rather than allowing for a RAND patent to be included. For example, with the SVG draft, once it was identifed that the patent interest from Kodak and Apple would not be RF compliant, the group would strive to find a solution to allow the standard to be RF - which in this case it did. However, if it had been that the standard could not be royaly free, then the standard would be abandoned and suitable alternatives considered if possible. This way, the standards remain open and are actively developed to be. By attempting to have member patent holders provide a RF solution, their membership and direction are 'guided' into an open framework. However, the difference with the the original proposal will ensure no member is tempted to attempt to place a patent into a standard for any perceived self-interest. If such a member values that work, then they would have no problem in promoting their work individually, rather than having it placed as a W3C standard. S Cox --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 11:35:35 UTC