Scripsit Grant Robertson:
Why didn't you say so in your first message? That would have saved anyone's
time.
I have found that sometimes if one reveals the true reason for a
question, then respondents will prejudge one's intent and not provide
accurate answers. By narrowing the focus of my question I ensure I get
the information I seek so that I can make my own judgements.
The odds of having a useful system for marking up educational material
approved as a W3C "standard" (recommendation) are comparable to the
proverbial odds of a snowball in Sahara.
Are you saying that marking up educational material so it is machine
parseable is not something W3C is interested in? Are they only interested
in general standards which can then be used for any type of material?
Perhaps I should look to another organization such as OASIS, which seems
to be more interested in specific standards for specific uses.
It is questionable whether anyone would need a license to use some tags.
That is like saying it is questionable whether someone would need a
license to use a protocol or to use some lines of code. If creative work
goes into defining a standard set of tags, and software won't work with
that data unless the tags in a data set follow that exact standard then
it is entirely possible to restrict use of that standard set of tags to
those who have agreed to a license and the restrictions contained
therein. It is done all the time. Just because you are used to not
needing to worry about licensing for the standards you use does not mean
that there are not patents on those technologies. It is entirely possible
to patent a technology then freely license it to anyone who wants to use
it.
If the restrictions of the license specified that no one could "embrace
and extend" the standard then that is the restriction everyone would have
to live with. If Microsoft added new tags and tried to claim they were
compatible then I could suspend their license to use the main part of the
standard and they would be left with only their additional tags. Even if
someone improves on a patent they still have to abide by the license to
the original patent. Any patents they hold on the improvements only apply
to those improvements.
Please also keep in mind: I will not be charging any licensing fees for
the technology. I would only be restricting use of the technology, which
is perfectly legal.
Welcome to Earth. Patents are generally country-specific, and patent offices
aren't literally filled with Einsteins (and a guess Einstein wasn't such a
great patent officer), so patents are granted that should never by granted,
for one reason or another.
Patents are always country specific. What is commonly know as a world
wide patent is really just a separate patent in every country in the
world. Most "world wide" patents are only recorded in the major
countries/legal regions.
I agree, Einstein was probably pretty distracted with "other things"
while he was processing patents.
I know that the patent process is long and arduous. But I still feel that
having a patent would better for the long term viability of this
technology than not having a patent.
Perhaps, but nobody knows that. Either the patent is not of any interest to
anything, or some company buys it from you.
I will know it. History will know it. Every web site explaining the
history of how the world was changed by the availability of free and
effective education for everyone in the world will mention it.
I will never "cash in" and sell this technology. In fact I have plans to
spilt the "ownership" or "assignment" of the patent between myself and
some other organization. There will be an agreement that neither side may
sell the patent and that, if reassignment becomes necessary, then the new
assignees must also agree to always license the technology for free with
the same restrictions. This is all possible and completely legal and so
would stand up in court.
