UTF-8 in ZIP

[Alex Brown]

Rob hi

I think it's understood that the Directives mean patents which apply to Recommendations/Deliverables under development -- if we've really got the spare time to spend picking holes in the wording of the Directives, then I'm sure it could all be consumed very easily doing just that!

> Better for whom?  

It is better for all of us in this group to concentrate on the task in hand, in happy accord with the Directives which govern our work, rather than debate about why they were written that way - interesting though that may be.

If I were to guess at the reasoning behind this, I would say that the IPR regime governing a specification will materially affect the process of standardizing it. If a project reached FDIS stage and it suddenly emerged at that late stage that a patent holder was not willing to negotiate licenses of an in-scope technology on acceptable terms, that project would be jeopardised or destroyed by that revelation, and a lot of time will have been wasted.

Or, as the Directives put it:

"The Patent Policy encourages the early disclosure and identification of Patents that may relate to Recommendations/ Deliverables under development. In doing so, greater efficiency in standards development is possible and potential patent rights problems can be avoided."

- Alex.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 03 November 2010 13:39
> To: Alex Brown
> Cc: sc34wg1study at vse.cz
> Subject: RE: UTF-8 in ZIP
> 
> Alex Brown <alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk> wrote on 11/03/2010 09:13:52 AM:
> 
> >
> > Rob hi
> >
> > > Better for whom?
> >
> > The ISO/IEC Directive Part 1 Clause 3 state:
> >
> > "any party participating in the work of the Organizations should, from
> > the outset, draw their attention to any known patent or to any known
> > pending patent application, either their own or of other
> organizations.
> >
> > In this context, the words "from the outset" imply that such
> > information should be disclosed as early as possible during the
> > development of the Recommendation / Deliverable."
> >
> 
> So you want me to draw your attention to "any known patent or to any
> known pending patent application"?  Seriously?
> 
> OK.  I know a patent.  It is US 5,555,555 "Apparatus Which Detects Lines
> Approximating an Image".
> 
> I also know another patent: US 4,444,444 "Equipment for storage of energy
> under kinetic form"
> 
> Shall I go on?  I know that there are approximately 7 million patents and
> patent applications.
> 
> But to be fair, Keanu Reeves is also known to me, though I have never met or
> seen him in person.  And I know of Albania, though I have never had the
> pleasure of visiting.
> 
> What now?
> 
> In any case I think you are dodging my question.  Better for whom?  The
> Directives state this as a recommendation, not a requirement.  So who
> benefits from showing all their cards up front?  And what can SC34 offer that
> makes the entities that actually hold the cards do this?  There is certainly no
> compulsion.  So I think this suggests that SC34 either lower its expectations,
> or that they make a case for why the parties that have what you want should
> give you what you want.  In other words, you need to consider what is to
> their benefit as well.  I think that is the fastest way to forging a compromise
> here.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________