On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
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):
FWIW that was my personal opinion based on reading the patent policy,
not an official position of Apple Inc.
Regards,
Maciej
