• To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
• Subject: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <6fa681b105060612523703ebc9@m...>

> This is done by the W3C all the time when
> they are attempting to insure that the patents that they are filing do
> not infringe existing patents.

This sentence seems wrong on several fronts.

I didn't think that W3C filed for patents.  A quick search didn't turn
up any with "world wide web consortium" in either the inventor or assignee
fields, and no Berners-Lee (at least not Tim) either.

It is perfectly legitimate to file a patent that builds on another patent,
such that if you actually wanted to build "B" you must get a license
for "A."  That's not infringement.

W3C requires patent disclosures.  This is so that implementors of
their standards are not "surprised" when the parties who participated in
the creation of those standards have patents that would have to be
licensed if you wanted to do the implementation.  (Cf RAMBUS :)

	/r$

-- 
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>

• References:
  • Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Next by Date: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Previous by thread: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Next by thread: Re: Another Microsoft XML patent
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread