On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
FWIW that was my personal opinion based on reading the patent policy,
not an official position of Apple Inc.