|
Posted by Grant Robertson on 03/31/07 03:05
In article <Yb6Ph.27065$wU5.25629@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>,
jkorpela@cs.tut.fi says...
> Scripsit Toby A Inkster:
> > Grant Robertson wrote:
> >> Was that ever patented?
> > No, why would it have been?
>
> > The whole point of the Web is that it
> > should be free and open.
>
> In any case, it's not completely free and open. But there would be little
> point in making HTML patented.
>
> > Patenting HTML would be contrary to the spirit of it.
Well, the reason I ask is that I am writing a standard for marking up
educational material that I hope to submit to the W3C. In keeping with
their policies I would license the technology for free. However, I am
still interested in a patent for several reasons. Primarily:
* A patent would preempt another episode of the browser wars where
Microsoft and Netscape kept adding non-standard features to HTML in an
attempt to shut each other out. With a patent, I could license the
technology for free but only under the condition that no one modify the
standard without going through the standards body. If Microsoft tried to
"embrace and extend" then I could revoke their license.
* If there is already a patent then no one could try to patent the
technology and steal it from the world for their own profit.
* If there is a patent then my name will be on it. Even if I never make a
penny from the standard itself, it would be nice to get some credit for
saving the world.
[Back to original message]
|