- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 17:55:06 +0200
- To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > 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. Its only my claim, not W3Cs claim. > > > 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? It has been done in that there was a Patent Advisory Group for SVG (as provided for in PPF) and they looked at the claims and the licenses and could ave advised waiting or changing the spec, but instead advised going ahead. > In that case, the only > thing remaining to be done is to remove the remaining references to RAND > licensing from the recommendation. Again, you see the list of patent claims as a list of agreed infringements. They can't be removed; they can't be unclaimed. -- Chris
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:55:20 UTC