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 than fact.



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

Reply via email to