[dsdl-discuss] Re: Papers for Philadelphia meeting

Rick

I've copied this message to Jim Mason because I don't think the patent issue
is something WG1 should handle: patentability of SC34 work is really
something that needs to be discussed in the Saturday morning plenary.

Re:
> >Rick/Erik: Will we have revised drafts for Parts 3 or 10 to discuss?
> >
>
> I want to propose the draft I put out several months ago as committee
> draft. I will
> add James' RELAX NG schema for Schematron (+ a couple of changes) and
> fill out some parts. Since this has been out for several months, I hope
> member bodies
> are in a position to comment on it after this time.

Your draft was never formally put around to member bodies because it was
submitted to the discussion list after the last meeting (in July). At that
time you simply said that it was a "rough draft of the Schematron spec" and
provided a pointer rather than the document, which is at
http://www.topologi.com/resources/tmp/schematron-is.xml. We've had no
comments from the discussion list members on the issue, but that does not
necessarily mean they are happy with putting out a "rough draft" as a CD as
you have only just this minute proposed this. Hopefully panel members will
review your submission before the meeting so they can discuss its relevance
in Philadelphia. You probably need to give us a version with James' schema
(after making the changes you want) and the filled out parts, to review next
week if you want a really relevant discussion of it. (We already have too
many people saying they'll submit things prepared on the flight to the US
that they expect to have approved at the meeting. As far as I am concerned
anything not submitted a month before the meeting is not likely to be
approved at the meeting due to lack of national body review.)

We need to discuss at this meeting whether the current draft should be put
forward as a CD.

> ----------------------------------------
>
> I should mention that I have had correspondence with an investigator
> with the
> European Patent Office who wrote:
>
> "I work in the field of patents and I have identified a company
> (ISPHERES) that is trying to get a patent covering a variation of the
> Schematron.
> I need a (dated!) document showing that the Schematron was arround
> before 06.04.2000
> if I want to prove that the patent application is not new. "

Sounds like he realizes they haven't got an earthly and was looking for
information to tell them so politely.
>
> Schematron dates from October 1999, and most of the ideas had been
> mentioned by
> me (including in a paper available in some conference proceedings) early
> in 1999.
> I sent off a complete reply inlcuding references, and have not heard
> more. One of
> my comments was that Schematron should be too obvious for a patent, on
> the grounds
> that it (or something close) has been independently developed at least
> four times.
>
> I do not believe that this is a basis for halting ISO Schematron. I will
> keep the
> WG informed.

It should not affect ISO Schematron because ISO Schematron will extend the
1999 version significantly. We should not run into problems unless our
extensions match those ISPHERES added exactly. I'm sure you can arrange for
them to "differ significantly", if only in scope.

>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> However it does raise three points in my mind:
>
> 1) The need for inventors to put out on paper or open source every idea
> they do
> not wish to patent themselves as soon as possible: in fact, I was very
> aware of
> this with Schematron and Hook, which is why I published them very soon.
> (I probably should have put out more information concerning validation
> with logic
> programs, just in case.)

That's why ISO encourages CD text to be submitted with a NWI proposal. As
soon as there is draft text then post-dated patents are nullified. Even
though the CD is not in the public domain its publication to ISO standards
body is protection against it being patented. Part of the NWI documentation
requires you to state that this is not a patented technique or, that if it
is patented, it will be made available at a reasonable fee to any potential
user. Otherwise the NWI never gets published.

> 2) I believe that the Western IPR systems for software, as being
> promoted by the US especially, is to some extent a negative force
> against standards and open specifications. I believe there is
> moderately strong agreement that the further down the protocol stack
> one goes, the more we all benefit from standards. Howwever, the
> situation we face is that when a standard becomes successful,
> there is a mad patent rush for the immediate next layer. The end result
> is an encumbered protocol stack, just the thing standards are meant
> to work against.

US patent standard have been a problem for manufacturers in Europe for well
over a century. I've recently become aware of the fact that a US patent for
pedal cycles was awarded 6 years after they were demonstrated on the streets
of Paris!!!
>
> The attempted patents on stylesheets, the Eolas patent, attempts
> to patent schemas, and so on, I believe demonstrate a failure.
> Of whom though? Of standards bodies for not providing as exhaustive
> as possible examples and use cases so that there is some defense
> against patents on the intended uses of standards?

It should not be possible to patent an application of a standard, though I
can see cases for the application of a particular schema if that is required
to make a new invention operate.

> Of greedy
> corporate users who don't buy that only really clever things
> should be standardized? Or the IPR bodies for allowing patents
> which involve international standards.

Mostly its the fault of greedy corporations. The patent bodies (as distinct
from those concerned with IPR of published material) go out of their way to
find reasons for rejecting anything, but are not omnipotent. Unless they can
find published material on a subject they cannot object. It's a case of
publish or be damned - i.e. to have your invention stolen.

> In other words, we standardized markup languages, schemas
> and transformation languages etc with the intent of making these
> available for everyone to use, not (I believe) with the intent
> of providing more material for greedy squatters. I wonder if
> there is anything that SC34 can do: for example to write a letter
> to all national IPR bodies requesting that International Standards
> not be undermined. I don't know if there is a cogent way to
> express this in legalese (where is Charles?) but certainly I
> feel that there should be no patents on schemas or on techniques
> that require a markup language.

I doubt if JTC1, who would have to do this, would be willing to take it on,
but we can but ask.

> I would ask that this issue be put on the agenda, if possible,
> please.

I feel it has to go on the SC34 agenda rather than WG1's. Jim, can you run
with this?

> 3) How do we know that things we standardize are not the subject
> of patents, especially with Europe signing up for sofware patents?

See above comments on NWI. We are supposed to inform JTC1 as soon as we find
that a patent has been issued relating to a standard, but whether we have to
do so when one is applied for in a particular area I am not sure. Jim, do
you know?

> By the way, I believe I will again not be representing Standards
> Australia this meeting. I tried to contact the official who told
> me Standards Australia no longer supports people to go to standards
> meetings, but he was overseas at a standards meeting.

WG1 will welcome you as you are a part editor! Whether you can get in as an
ISUG delegate at this late stage I am unsure. That's up to Jim as well.
Perhaps you need to be so that you can raise the patents issue at the
plenary. Jim, it's your call on this.

Martin Bryan

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)