[standards-jig] Question on JEP-0001
stpeter at jabber.org
Sun May 5 17:46:15 UTC 2002
Well, I could definitely see that pre-emptive approach being useful (I'd
rather see Jabber, Inc. hold a patent on something Jabber-related than AOL
or Microsoft or Sun or IBM). To the best of my knowledge, this idea may
have been discussed at j.inc but no action has ever been taken on this
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> On 5/3/02 2:11 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> > Yes, royalty-free licensing seems most appropriate. However, it seems that
> > no IP claim is the norm here. Shall we have two sets of wording?
> > 1. No IP claims -- this is the default.
> > 2. If IP claim, royalty-free licensing.
> > Make sense?
> One thing that w3c has been wrestling with is people wanting to patent
> standards proposals/technologies to preempt the possibility of someone else
> patenting it. From what I understand it can help if disputes arise later.
> If you take this to Jabber Inc lawyers you might ask if that's something we
> (JSF) might want to consider.
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards