- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:16:34 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
On October 5, 2001 05:55 pm, Chris Lilley wrote: > 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. What steps are required to make this W3C's claim as well? > > > > 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. How can I find the names and affiliations of the members of the Patent Advisory Group for SVG? > > 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. If some are irrelevant then they should be removed and the patent statement updated accordingly. -- Daniel
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:16:31 UTC