- From: Steven J. DeRose <Steven_DeRose@brown.edu>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:10:08 -0500
- To: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
At 10:59 AM -0500 1/11/01, David E. Cleary wrote: >I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels this way, but the terms given >to use XPointer without getting sued by Sun are unacceptable. XPointer >either needs to remove any infringing functionality, get a patent license >from Sun that contains no strings, or invalidate Sun's patent. The precedent >this specification will set is not a road I want to go down. I think it would be more helpful to be more specific. It is not clear to me whether or not XPointer even *does* infringe the patent. So what would you specifically propose removing? And what would be the consequences to usability and functionality? What does "no strings" mean? Sun requiring that any other technology that "infringes" must be given to W3C to use seems nearly the same as many open-source licenses do (and far friendlier than some). What would you propose as a specific improvement? Is there a specific use case that you think would be wrongly blocked by the present terms? How do you propose to "invalidate Sun's patent"? A patent is legally valid until proven otherwise. If you want to invalidate it, I believe you must show specific, public, clear prior art; show intentional fraud; or make a clear and specific case for it having been obvious at the time. Short of those specifics, I see no way to carry out any of your suggestions. Let's try to actually *solve* the problem. Steve "not a lawyer" DeRose -- Steven_DeRose@Brown.edu; http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd Chief Scientist, Brown Univ. Scholarly Technology Group
Received on Friday, 12 January 2001 17:52:16 UTC