Re: Apple's SVG patent

On October 5, 2001 05:17 pm, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 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.

So obviously it's an iterative process.

> > 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.

Yes, that is indeed a danger.  But do you think that SVG is specifically at 
risk?  I don't see any credible proprietary alternative on the horizon.  
Perhaps the closest thing is Adobe's Flash, but first, it's already well 
entrenched, and second, it doesn't occupy the same niche that SVG would.

> > 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.

Well, this is wonderful.  Then the SVG recommendation should be revised 
immediately to reflect that.

> > > 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.

If that has been done then what are we arguing about?  In that case, the only 
thing remaining to be done is to remove the remaining references to RAND 
licensing from the recommendation.

--
Daniel

Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:36:30 UTC