Recent W3C Patent Policy Proceedings "Minutes"

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>]

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2002Oct/
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2002Sep/

(Meeting reports through September and October, in reverse
order.  The most informative is dated October 6.  -- Seth)


Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:07:17 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <susan@textet.com>
Subject: Summary of 21 October 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Hello,

Nineteen people attended the 21 October 2002 Patent Policy
Working Group (PPWG) teleconference. Two topics were on the
agenda. First the group made preliminary plans for their
presentation to W3C's Members at the November semi-annual
W3C Advisory Committee Meeting in Cambridge, MA. There was
talk of how to attend both the AC Meeting and the IETF IPR
meeting in Atlanta the same day. About ten participants
decided they could be on a AC Meeting PPWG panel. Second the
group talked about what the PPWG's patent policy drafts have
in common with and how they differ from W3C Recommendation
track [1] documents. The group talked about the differences
between consensus, compromise, and majority, and whether to
call a draft "Last Call."

[1]
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Recs

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/

----

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 21:20:36 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Subject: Summary of 7 October 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Hello,

Nineteen people attended the 7 October 2002 Patent Policy
Working Group (PPWG) teleconference. The group reviewed a
new internal working draft that includes all decisions
reached at the recent face-to-face meeting [1]. The Chair
who serves as editor of the policy drafts took six editorial
action items for next time. They concerned invited experts,
affiliates, Member companies who might steal ideas from the
W3C site, the composition of W3C Patent Advisory Groups
(PAGs), and the definition of "essential claims." The group
then talked about one of its outstanding issues, a proposal
for how government agencies that are W3C Members can deal
with patents they may encounter. The Chair will consult on
this with a Member who is part of the U.S. government. The
group meets next on 21 October.

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2002Oct/0000

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/

----

Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 16:21:00 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Subject: Summary of 30 September - 1 October 2002 Patent
Policy Working  Group meeting


Hello,

Twenty six people participated in the ninth Patent Policy
Working Group (PPWG) face to face meeting held 30 September
- 1 October 2002. Three participated by phone.

- There was a final discussion of the RAND Exception Task
Force's "Core/Extension" proposal.

- The group talked about ways that implementers could find
out how to get a license and whether patent holders could
provide licensing and contact information on the W3C site.

- The group reached consensus that W3C Members who
contribute work through the W3C Submission process must
answer a question as to whether technology essential to
implement their contribution is available royalty free. The
Submission process can proceed should they answer either yes
or no. If the submitter does not answer the question, no
Submission can be published.

- The group discussed the timing of patent exclusion
deadlines which are tied to each Working Group's
requirements document in the current draft policy. They
agreed to ask the W3C Advisory Board that requirements
documents be a required part of the W3C Recommendation track
in the future.

Eight ballot questions were decided. The PPWG voted to:

- Retain "have made" rights in the draft policy.
- Delete "have used" rights from the draft policy.
- Not provide a default license.
- Provide a way for every W3C Working Group participant to
give their licensing information to those seeking it.
- Not adopt the RAND Exception Task Force's "Core/Extension"
component in the proposed W3C royalty-free policy.
- Not give W3C Patent Advisory Groups (PAGs) open-ended
options.
- Approve procedural amendments and clarifications to PAG
process.
- Append the RAND Exception Task Force's proposal to the
final PPWG proposed policy, indicating the vote count, so
that the W3C Advisory Committee will know what alternative
was considered.

Participants who voted for the RAND exception talked about
how and when to file minority opinions.

- The group talked at length in response to a request to add
a requirement that W3C host site employees and W3C Team
members be bound by the PPWG patent policy. Nine PPWG
participants formed a Host/Team Task Force to study W3C Team
and academic institution participation in W3C Activities.
They will report back to the group.

- Possible new names for W3C patent license commitments were
discussed.

The Chair and group worked out a publication and meeting
schedule. The PPWG expects to resolve all of its outstanding
issues during October and request to publish a Last Call
Working Draft later this year.

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/

----

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:08:30 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Subject: Summary of 23 September 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Hello,

Twenty people attended the 23 September 2002 Patent Policy
Working Group (PPWG) teleconference. The group discussed the
final proposal from the the RAND Exception Task Force. The
proposal has two new parts: Patent Advisory Groups (PAGs)
would have timing options, and there is a new catch-all
clause that a PAG could recommend other action than
"Core/Extension." Participants discussed whether RAND
exceptions would be made only for specific patents that were
disclosed or whether the RAND exception process applied to
the group for subject matter identified. The RAND exception
in the final proposal may apply to the group based on
subject matter, and will not be limited to disclosed
patents. The proposal as written means RAND for everyone in
the group. Someone asked how this proposal differs from the
RAND track in earlier policy drafts. The Chair and others
explained that the major difference is there is no way to
start as RAND. RAND is the exception. One person asked about
requirements documents should a PAG recommend an extension
specification, and another asked the group to vote down the
proposal when it comes up for a straw poll at the next face
to face meeting.

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/

----

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:43:09 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Subject: Summary of 18 September 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Hello,

Twenty one people attended the 18 September 2002 Patent
Policy Working Group (PPWG) teleconference. Almost the
entire meeting was devoted to a "have made" rights proposal
and alternative that a participant sent to the group. One
person advocated choosing the version that would be easiest
for the reader to understand and another agreed. Another
suggested not including have made rights in the policy.
Someone suggested that this is not a big issue and that
suppliers would be responsible for getting their own
licenses. Some other participants agreed. By the end of the
discussion, several participants thought that the current
policy draft is fine and will not need alteration. It was
agreed that the topic will come to a straw poll vote at the
next face to face. At the end of the meeting there was a
brief report from the Core/Extension combined Task Force,
and the Chair discussed logistics for the next face to face.

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/

----

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:13:16 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Subject: Summary of 9 September 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Hello,

Twenty people attended the 9 September 2002 Patent Policy
Working Group (PPWG) teleconference. About half of the
meeting was a discussion of whether to include a "click
wrap" disclosure requirement inside W3C Working Drafts prior
to Recommendation. This would apply to non-W3C members, who
are not bound by the present policy to disclose their
patents like Members are. A straw poll decided no. Plain
text to this effect inside Working Drafts was approved. The
second half of the meeting was continued discussion of "have
made" rights, transfer of patent rights to and from an OEM,
restrictions on suppliers, intrusion of W3C policy on
business practice, and a question of antitrust. Suggestions
were to somehow put the burden on the Member, to narrow the
scope of suspension to a specific specification, and to omit
have made rights from W3C patent policy. The issue was
unresolved, and participants with "narrow" proposals may
send them to the group.

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/

----

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:00:16 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Subject: Summary of 3 September 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Hello,

Twenty one people attended the 3 September 2002 Patent
Policy Working Group (PPWG) teleconference. Two topics arose
from a new internal working draft. The group for the most
part agreed to a proposal to have a call for disclosure in
every W3C specification. The Chair will prepare two possible
texts for a decision next time. Second, an editorial
oversight about unpublished applications was corrected.
Also, "have made" rights were briefly discussed again, and
new language defining "affiliate" was accepted. In closing,
the group agreed to dates for a face to face meeting.

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/

----

Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:05:09 -0700
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Subject: Summary of 26 August 2002 Patent Policy Working
Group  Teleconference


Hello,

Seventeen people attended the 26 August 2002 Patent Policy
Working Group (PPWG) teleconference (the first meeting since
the July face to face). The group discussed at length the
disclosure and licensing obligations of employees of the W3C
hosts, MIT, INRIA, and Keio. Part of the group felt that MIT
is not set up in the same way as a commercial entity. Others
felt the same rules that apply to Members should apply to
hosts. Two participants in the PPWG will investigate and
report back. Then the group discussed the possibility of
"have made" obligations for parties entering into
distributed licensing agreements. For example Party A may
license to B who licenses to C who licenses to D.
"Exhaustion of remedies" was pointed out. A sub-group of the
PPWG will discuss this offline and report back. Finally the
group agreed to their teleconference schedule for August and
September.

Best wishes,
-- 
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org               tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/


-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but
only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual
practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.