RE: BOCU-1 spec

Date: Tue Feb 20 2007 - 20:16:18 CST

  • Next message: Martin Duerst: "Re: CSS3 Text and UAX14 (was: CSS3 Text - Edit Suggestions)"

    Conversely a GPL type permit, does not mean that if one adds just
    anything to it the result is GPL. If one as as a private indiviual
    adds something of ones own creation then the rights belong to oneself
    and so you havae the right to make it GPL. If some-one just copies
    something from somewhere else then they don't have the rght to make it
    GPL, nor can one make GPL something covered by existing patents unless
    one is the patent holder.

    If one is working for a company when doing a project, often the terms
    of the contract mean that the rights belong to the compnay and not the

    IMHO the case here of two different licenses from the same company
    makes things rather complicated. The best thing to do, if the question
    is whehther or not to use BOCU-1 spec, is IMHO ask IBM for a
    clarifying statement in writing, BOCU-1 spec can itself be made the
    subject of a GPL, this would not free IBMs patents in non BOCU-1 spec
    cases and would make it eligable for consideration for acceptance; It
    would then be possible to both implemnt and continue development of
    BOCU-1 spec as required without fear. Without such a freeing up BOCU-1
    itself would seem to be too dangerous.

    John Knightley

    Quoting Philippe Verdy <>:

    >> De : Doug Ewell []
    >> Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
    >> > Are you sure that this (individual claims) is required? I've seen
    >> > comments about US patents where infringement is demonstrated only when
    >> > *all* claims are infringed. If you drop only only claim (for example
    >> > some details about the implementation technics), and replace it by
    >> > something else not covered in that patent, then it is not the same
    >> > product, and it is not patented.
    >> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that if that were the case, it would be
    >> rather counterproductive to list pages and pages of specific claims.
    > It may be necessary only because a single claim would cover prior art; those
    > claims together are defining precisely the invention by means of
    > restrictions, rather than by addition.
    > If you need to protect multiple features separately, you need to register
    > multiple patents, one for each invention in its own precise scope.

    This message sent through Virus Free Email

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 20:18:52 CST