<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There were some good responses to the new W3C patent policy. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The W3C has put out a new reponse</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A href="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response">http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Oliver Jones wrote:</FONT></DIV> <DIV>> W3C is trying to prevent the element of surprise--a submarine patent surfacing and its owner demanding payment after standardization.  This is an entirely good goal, I think.<BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree 100% that submarine patents are bad and any attempt to eliminate them will be good. But reading the document I am not very clear if what happens when a company finds that it has a patent relating a royalty free standard. It seems that the company then has to license the patents under RAND terms and NOT royalty free terms.   </FONT><BR><FONT face=arial size=2></FONT></DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Oliver Jones wrote:</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV>> Strangely enough, the GNU Public License does NOT include explicit permission to actually USE the software it covers, only to copy and make derivative works of it.  I fear this omission in the GPL is going to be crucial in resolving some upcoming patent litigation (see <A href="http://www.freedb.org">www.freedb.org</A>). <BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please explain. </FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ashvil</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>