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.

cheers

Chaals

--
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