Re: Apple's SVG patent

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> On October 5, 2001 04:08 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> > I have asked Adobe to clarify their licensing terms since they contain a
> > condition that was future-looking when originally submitted but no
> > longer needs to be conditional now that all the working group members
> > have made their license terms known.
> 
> This is good, but it shows that the SVG recommendation should not have been
> accepted until after this step had been completed.  

There is a chicken and egg situation here - until a spec is final,
companies cannot be sure which of their patents apply. Until we know
what patent claims there are, we can't finalise the spec.

> Good things are worth
> waiting for. 

Things which are waited for too long beome itrelevant and other, much
more restrictive ansd encumbered alternatives can take root instead.

> I for one, would be happy to wait a while for SVG if it means
> that I can get an SVG without patent encumbrances.

As I mentioned before, I claim that there are no patent encumbrances.

> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > I'd like to suggest that if the goal really was to prepare a specification
> > > unencumbered by patent claims, the SVG working group could have done much
> > > more in that regard.
> >
> > Such as....
> 
> Such as waiting for final disclosure of claims from all participants, 

See above regarding chicken and egg

> and
> determining for each whether RF licensing is available.  Then analyze the
> extent to which the remaining non-RF claims apply to the recommendation.
> Next, change the recommendation to avoid infringing any such claims.

Ok, done already.

-- 
Chris

Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:18:12 UTC