• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: Daniel.Veillard@i..., "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:27:13 -0500

Daniel Veillard  wrote:

>
>   I will just note that exhibiting prior art is not sufficient.
> You also need some legal action to take place before getting a
> patent removed, right ? (I would be soooo happy if I was wrong !)

That's not the point. It is one thing to issue a statement to the effect
that:

"While we take no position on the validity of the claim, a member of the W3C
has informed us that certain provisions of the XPointer specification fall
under patent ..."

It is entirely another thing to impose conditions on the mere reading of the
XPointer specification which by the way is simply silly language that anyone
who has ever been involved in the drafting of a software contract ought know
is silly.

-Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way todispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
• Previous by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread