On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote:
The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big players
don't want to take the perceived risk (their decision) they'd still be
100% within the spec. Thus I fail to see why there was need for action.
There's a question within the W3C Process whether patents that are
covered by a SHOULD via a reference are granted a RF license similarly
to anything that MUST be implemented. Both Nokia and MS raised concerns
about this relating to publishing the spec as a FPWD.
And these concerns are total rubbish (as pointed out by Apple and others):
8.1. Essential Claims
"Essential Claims" shall mean all claims in any patent or patent
application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be
infringed by implementation of the Recommendation. A claim is necessarily
infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it
because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the
normative portions of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing
alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the
specification becomes a Recommendation.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential
In other words, the patent policy makes it clear that to be covered,
something must be required in order to implement. A SHOULD-level
requirement is clearly not required.
So any such concern about the wording that was in the spec is more FUD
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com