- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:09:41 +0200
- To: Claude Zervas <claude@utlco.com>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Cc: chris@w3.org
On October 7, 2001 09:30 am, 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. > This makes the SVG proposal suspect and unattractive to implementors until the > remaining RANDs have been converted to RFs. > 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. Note that it is not enough just to ignore SVG and not implement it. > As long as there are RANDs attached to a W3C proposal there exists such risks. I don't > care how much anybody bleats on about how the patents may not encumber > the proposal. We really have no idea what the patent holders may do in the future. 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. > > All W3C proposals should be left unencumbered by at least the W3C member corporations. > If a member will not give up a RAND then the proposal should be tossed. Patents are a > way for BigCos to monopolize, and hence stifle, innovation. To support this implicitly by > allowing RANDs attached to proposals is shortsighted and does not seem to fit the W3C > charter. > > - Claude > >
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 15:09:31 UTC