Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:2oapb5-l3s.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Yes - and there is naturally a reason for the word not being "must".
>
> Ought-to is, in fact, very strong. You (one) need(s) a very strong
> reason for not abiding by the rule.
So you agree with me, that there is a difference between the words
"shall" and "should", right? Using the word "should" does /not/ imply a
normative requirement for implementers.
>>> I know that W3C's rules require that there is no patent involved in
>>> their work. I know that ISO permit such patents. These are two
>>> positions of certainty. The simplest analysis, therefore, shows
>>> that W3C standards should be preferred since they guarantee the
>>> avoidance of attempts by companies to shovel patents in under the
>>> carpet of the standard, whereas, as you state above, ISO encourages
>>> such behaviour.
>>
>> Seriously, the W3C policy does not quarantee anything and you are
>> also wrong wtrt W3C requirement that no patents are involved in their
>> work. From http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/ you will see
>> the phrasing:
>
> Okay, I should've said that there're guaranteed to be no royalty or
> licensing requirements... unlike at ISO, where you could be taken to
> the cleaners for using any of their standards.
No - that is a blue-sky scenario. If someone has a patent covering e.g.
XML, it doesn't really matter if XML is a W3C-standard. If it was so,
simply making a technology a W3C-standard would invalidate any patents
held on the technology. I am sure you do not agree that this is the case
and that W3C would have some sort of over-rule mechanisme for all
IPR-laws around the world.
> Ie., if you use a W3C standard, you do not have to worry about
> patents, because nobody will be coming after you.
Those /participating/ in the work will not come after you - but there is
no guarantee that patent holders outside of the W3C-work will come after
you. You use the word "guarantee" a lot - an it is a bit dangerous since
it's not actually so.
> So, my point remains, if you wish to avoid patent problems, then use
> W3C standards, because you have a guarantee, whereas is you use ISO
> standards, you run a high risk, since ISO encourages the inclusion of
> patents in its standards.
No - you have no guarantees - period.
The basic difference between the ISO-rules and the W3C-rules is that ISO
allows RAND as well as RANDZ where W3C only allows RANDZ. In both cases
the IPR-policies do not protect you from patents held by parties outside
of the work.
>> http://noooxml.wikidot.com/forum/t-35108/iso-warned-about-possible-
>> patent-ambush-on-ooxml
>>
>> It's propably a bogus claim ...
>
> Probably?
Yes.
>> but it shows that W3C can - as everyone
>> else - not quarantee against anything they do not have knowledge on.
>>
>
> Irrelevant. The W3C will not allow anything which is not available
> for free.
... "which they know of". The W3C says that they will not make a
standard/recommendation of a technology if they are aware of patents
covering it that are not made available on RANDZ-terms. But what if the
W3C is not aware of a particular patent? Do you really mean that the
patent then becomes moot? In the case of the patent claim on XML, W3C
was not aware of this patent when it made the XML-standard (AFAIR). Does
this invalidate the patent?
Of course not ... you, of all people, should know this.
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
