[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DotGNU]W3C Patent Policy "Minutes" for 10/28 Meeting

From: Seth Johnson
Subject: [DotGNU]W3C Patent Policy "Minutes" for 10/28 Meeting
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 07:04:07 -0500

(The W3C Patent Policy Working Group minutes have been very
nondescript since the hoopla arose over the "RAND" patent
policy.  Following is my bit to my C-FIT lists; Eben Moglen
replied, and I'll forward that next.  I've snipped the
contract language in this message.  -- Seth)

(Not clear exactly what this portends.  Some sort of matter
that appears to be contentious with political overtures
specifically mentioned in these very nondescript "minutes"
is receiving submitted objections by yesterday, November 8
("A question of withdrawing from the PPWG was taken
offline").  The three cited texts don't appear to reveal
much.  The "process" document doesn't mention patents, and
appears to just be process of W3C developed externally from
the Patent Policy Working Group.  The two agreements seem to
be contracts covering terms of participation in W3C stuff. 
I've pasted one of them below, but I don't understand its
import.  I have no idea . . .  Seth)


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:18:19 -0800
To: address@hidden
From: Susan Lesch <address@hidden>
Subject: Summary of 28 October 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Twenty one people attended the 28 October 2002 Patent Policy
Working Group (PPWG) teleconference. First the group talked
about their presentation to the W3C Advisory Committee in
Boston in November. One participant had circulated four
issues for in-depth treatment, and three more topics were
added. The group plans to work on all of them and select the
top four or so. Next, the group discussed the rules for
filing formal objections which are due 8 November. Degrees
of agreement - unanimity, consensus, and dissent - within
the PPWG were discussed. A question of withdrawing from the
PPWG was taken offline. It was agreed that multiple
organizations can sign on in support of a single formal
objection rather than write duplicates. Finally, the group
talked about how the W3C Process Document [1] would contain
or link to patent policy, and how to work with the W3C
Advisory Board on this. No changes to the Member Agreements
[2,3] were foreseen.


Best wishes,
Susan Lesch 
mailto:address@hidden               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

< SNIPped the Full Agreement contract language.  Follow the
link if you like reading legalese.  -- Seth>

C-FIT Community Discussion List
List Parent: address@hidden
C-FIT Home:

To Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Send "[Un]Subscribe C-FIT_Community" To

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]