- From: Jeffery Wong <ldwcy000@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:39:21 +0800
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACLouJ=r1sa0bX=1xfL7aQOqC0FDTo_iJhUqP+_F=67JSsFjeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello! I'm interested in the patent policy of W3C and writing this email to ask a question about some licensing conditions listed in some patent disclosures. According to the W3C patent policy, all participants in a Work Group must agree to the W3C RF licensing requirement. If a participant does not agree to license a certain patent including essential claims under W3C RF licensing requirement, it should provoke the exclusion mechanism to exclude the essential claims. However, I found that some patent disclosures listed in the W3C website contain statements as "Not excluded, but not under Royalty-Free commitment". For example: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/p76 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/p77 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/p83 Does this kind of statement mean that the participant does not want to license the essential claims under the RF licensing condition as well as not to exclude them? Is such option acceptable in accordance with the W3C patent policy? Moreover, will a PAG be established concerning such essential claims? Yours sincerely, Jeffery Wong
Received on Sunday, 18 August 2013 18:47:20 UTC