- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 17:39:45 +0200
- To: Claude Zervas <claude@utlco.com>
- CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Claude Zervas wrote: > > > Chris Lilley wrote: > >.... > >You have not shown that SVG is encumbered. > > But neither you sir, nor the W3C, have shown that the SVG is ***NOT*** encumbered. Correct. There is neither proof nor disproof; instead there is information, which developers must interpret as best they can. Allow me to digress a little into software patents in general. If software patents exist, it would be better if they were only waared for astonishing clevernes, ingenuity and originality. But they are not - the bar for consideration of prior art and obviousness to someone skilled in the field is extrodinarily low. Plus, they are not written by engineers, but writen an a deliberately vague and obscuring legalese so that when it is callened in court, there is easy 'cannon fodder' bogus claims that can be given away and agreed invalid to protect the core claims. This is legal manouevering, not technology. Lastly, patents are not really validated when issued. They are validated if people assume they are valid and act as if they are valid; and their ultimate test is unfortunately left to the legal system. In addition, W3C producers specs and developers produce software implementations of them. So it might be that one reasonable way to implement something is subject to a patent claim and another, equally satisfactory way is not. So W3C cannot say "there is a patent on such and such, therefore clearly it is valid and applies to a section of the spec." We can only say "there is a patent claim and here is the number, go look it up and see if you believe it is valid and if so, whether it applies to the way you have written your code." > This makes the SVG proposal suspect and unattractive to implementors Only because people have chosen to focus on it. Thats a public relations issue, not a technical or legal one. The same is true of any other specification from anywhere else. > until the > remaining RANDs have been converted to RFs. I agree that having those few licenses which are RAND be converted to RF would make me feel better and would make the developer community feel better. It does not however offer a guaranteed of immunity - just increases the statistical likelihood. Exactly the same as any other specification frm W3C or from anywhere else. > I would be very hesitant to invest a lot of development effort when there is a > non-negligible > risk of litigation (and hence financial ruin) down the road. So, tell me, which other specifications have you implemented and what assurances were there for those? Or did you just assume that no knews is good news? > As long as there are RANDs attached to a W3C proposal there exists such risks. Well, I would counter and say that as long as there are software patents granted for obvious and trivial bits of computer science then there is a risk. > I don't > care how much anybody bleats on about how the patents may not encumber > the proposal. That sounds very much like "I want life to be simple, don't confuse me with the facts" > We really have no idea what the patent holders may do in the future. In the general sense and for patent holders in general and for specifications other than SVG in general, that is true. You have no ideas what patents are there, who holds them, and whether they intend to actively get money from them or passively hold them in reserve against when someone sures *them*. However for SVG you do have some more information because W3C called for patents that might apply from the members of the working group that developed the specificatio to be declared in advance. This simultaneoously makes information available sooner and weakens the legal case against any patents declared later by those companies. > IBM > or Adobe may seem friendly enough right now, but if the past is any indication one would > be a fool to count on a continuing benevolence. I agree that counting on continuing benevolence is foolish. It may have worked well enough in the past but incidents such as the Unisyss claim for GIF, the Intermind patent claim for P3P and the BT claim for hyperlinks shows that continuing to count on benevolence is foolish. Hence, W3C is developing a formal policy. > All W3C proposals should be left unencumbered by at least the W3C member corporations. Ok, thanks for the precision there. I agree that W3C can > If a member will not give up a RAND then the proposal should be tossed. You seem to implicitly suppose that all patents are valid and that all W3C Members are benevolent (in a different way). Suppose some company stands to loose if there is an open specification for something. They could just join W3C, make some claim, offer RAND and according to your proposal, they would achieve their object of immediately halting the development of the spec regardless of how off the weall, obvious or plain irrelevant their claim was. Thus leaving the market to be dominated by a proprietary and possiblt undocumented format or protocol with possibly onerous licensing terms .... > Patents are a > way for BigCos to monopolize, and hence stifle, innovation. OK, personally you will not fine me disagreeing with that one, but in that case get your local politician to start arguing that software patents stifle innovation, free trade and economic development. > To support this implicitly Now there you have a good point, and while it seems clear to me that W3C needs a policy to deal with those countries that have allowed software patents, it must be very careful to not give the impression to other countries that software patents area good thing or to be encouraged. > by allowing RANDs attached to proposals is shortsighted and does not seem to fit the W3C > charter. I accept that this is your position and that of many others; I would merely caution that it is declared patents that are the primary problem when ecaluating a specification. Some company offering RAND that has no patents that apply does not seem to be a problem, and merely constrains their future behaviour should they discover or acquire through purchase, merger etc additional patents in the future. But I agree that if the company gave RF to start with then the problem does not arise. However, I would rather see a company give RAND in general and then give RF on specific patents as it becomes aware of them, than see them give no assurances at all. -- Chris
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 11:39:47 UTC