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.


Reply via email to