Archive for November, 2013

h1

Links 11/07/2013

November 7, 2013
  • nist smartgrid standards

    tags: standards

  • tags: standards

  • tags: bylaws standards open source

  • tags: rand frand standards

  • tags: standards itut

  • open web and web stuff

    tags: web standards open

  • As Google, arguably the most powerful company in the Internet industry, needs to find ways to continue growing, it inevitably faces a temptation: Does it keep developing features that work with those of other companies, even competitors, making it easy for users to share their data, conversations and content across the Web? Or does it roll out products that only work with Google sites to nudge users to spend more time on its properties?

    More concisely, does it remain a champion of the so-called “Open Web,” or move toward a closed model similar to AOL at the beginning or Facebook now?

    tags: standards

  • David Recordon listed a few already in a previous mail. I added a few, and I’m pretty sure I have forgotten many of them (in fact it’s quite amazing to see the landscape around identity management and social networks). Some have overlaps or address slightly different goals. Do we have a one liner description for each of them? For example, both wikipedia and the opensocial fails to explain what it is about in the first paragraph.

    tags: standards

  • RecentPatentCaseLawAffectingTechnicalStandards.PDF –

    tags: patent law standards ibm

  • If you haven’t seen a lot of applications built in the last few weeks that leverage the Google Buzz API, it’s because there aren’t any. In fact, Google hasn’t yet rolled out any API for Buzz. According to the company, this isn’t due to any backroom dealings where they plan to introduce proprietary code and hooks that tie activity to their platform, but instead, because they wanted to be sure they could first build a product that in fullness leveraged open Web standards, and start with that foundation to deliver an interoperable system that could continue to function even if Google were to “disappear off the face of the earth”.

    tags: standards

  • In a response to my article here, DeWitt Clinton of Google defined what he deemed the definition of “open” to be.  According to DeWitt, “the first is licensing of the protocols themselves, with respect to who can legally implement them and/or who can legally fork them.”  I argue if this were the case, then why didn’t Google clone and standardize what Facebook is doing, where many, many more developers are already integrating and writing code for?  Facebook itself is part of the Open Web Foundation, and applies the same principles as Google to allowing others to clone the APIs they provide to developers.

    tags: standards google

  • As part of a series of interviews with W3C Members to learn more about their support for standards and participation in W3C, I’m talking to Paul Cotton from Microsoft and co-Chair of the W3C HTML Working Group.

    First, let me thank you personally on becoming a co-chair of the W3C HTML Working Group. I am very happy with Microsoft’s commitment to the HTML Working Group and to HTML 5. Microsoft is collaborating very actively, and helping drive consensus around many HTML 5 proposals related to Canvas, Accessibility and Extensibility.

    Q. Microsoft participates in a large number (~30) of W3C Working Groups and has shown this level of commitment for many years. You sent 12 people to the November 2009 HTML Working Group face-to-face meeting, an unusually high number of people from a single company for a face-to-face meeting. Why is Microsoft investing so heavily in the W3C HTML 5 effort?

    tags: microsoft standards

  • The practical implications of the Federal Circuit’s Transcore decision could be significant.  Partly to avoid patent exhaustion, it has become common practice for many patent owners to grant limited personal covenants not to sue rather than licenses – often expressly retaining the right to assert their patents against downstream customers of the covenantee.  The Federal Circuit has now expressly confirmed what Quanta and other cases before it already implied: that for purposes of patent exhaustion a covenant not to sue amounts to authorization just as a license does.  As Quanta made clear, patent owners seeking to avoid exhaustion must limit the scope of the licensee’s or covenantee’s authorization to sell.  Sales exceeding the scope of the authorization remain unauthorized, and are themselves infringing, and thus do not trigger exhaustion.  What courts will not allow, however, is the grant of patent immunity to a party upstream while a patent owner retains the ability to assert its patents against downstream customers.

    More generally, patent owners and licensees or covenantees will need to consider carefully the implications of granting or obtaining a covenant not to sue instead of a license.  While a covenant may be treated like a license for many purposes – including, for example, with respect to patent marking – it may still afford less protection than a license in the event of bankruptcy or a transfer of the underlying patent to a third party who does not agree to be bound by the covenant.

    All licensors should be aware of Transcore’s holding regarding implied licenses by virtue of estoppel.  Because such a license is, in effect, a license implied-in-law, disclaimers of implied licenses and even express exclusions of certain patents may not succeed in defeating the implication of a license as to patents that are necessary to practice the expressly licensed patents.

    The impact of the Static Control and Hitachi decisions is less clear at this time. Both are district court decisions that are clearly inconsist

    tags: standards patent exhaustion

  • 1) Open protocols and formats mean two specific things to me:

    The first is licensing of the protocols themselves, with respect to who can legally implement them and/or who can legally fork them. This involves patent and copyright licenses (and sadly yes, lawyers). While a small number of us are always debating the finer details of how it works, eventually there’s a binary aspect to it: a protocol has to be formally licensed for reuse for it to be open.

    The second is the license by which the data itself is made available. (The Terms and Conditions, so to speak.) The formal definitions are less well established here (thus far!), but it ultimately has to do with who owns the data and what proprietary rights over it are asserted.

    In an ideal, interoperable, and decentralized world, implementors can both clone and/or fork the protocols as desired (without asking permission), and users can get their own data back out without needing to follow to someone else’s restrictions about how they use it.

    It’s important to look at both aspects above when judging if a system is open. Can I legally fork and/or clone it? And, am I entering into a arrangement that places limitations on my rights to use my own data? (And the corollary, are other people entering into a arrangement that puts limitations on their rights to share their own data with me?)

    If the answer to either or both is “no”, then no matter what we may want to believe, regrettably it’s not an open system. (And don’t be misled—even the worst data silos are obviously going to enable some way to get data out, otherwise no one would put anything in. The question is what do you have give up to get it back out? It’s a question I believe more people should be asking, and asking it before they turn their data over to some network.)

    So when I say “open” I don’t just throw the word around casually. I mean those two very precise things: what is the license, and what are the Terms. It’s not hand-waving, and it’s not marketing. It’s technical, and it’s legal. Boring to some,

    tags: standards

  • The other co-founder of Streamy, Jonathan Gray, will be joining David Recordon(previously with Six Apart) and Monica Keller (previously with MySpace) and become part of the social networking giant’s open source division.

    tags: standards facebook

  • tags: patents standards

  • Webfinger and distributed networks

    tags: standards

  • 1.1.1 Failure to Comply. In the event Alliance determines, in its sole discretion, that the Certified Product(s) fails to comply with requirements set forth in DLNA’s Test Plan Document (“Non-Complying Certified Product(s)”), Licensee shall, upon written notice by Alliance (the “Notice”), take the following action:
    1.1.1.1 Licensee shall: (i) immediately cease (or cause to cease) all sale and distribution of the Non-Complying Certified Product, including without limitation, all sales activities by third party retailers acting on Licensee’s behalf; and (ii) within thirty (30) days of Licensee’s receipt of the Notice (the “Removal Period”), remove or cause to be removed, at Licensee’s expense, the Non-Complying Certified Product from the marketplace. Upon the expiration of the Removal Period, Licensee shall destroy (and certify the destruction of), at its own cost, the Non-Complying Certified Product.
    1.1.1.2 Licensee shall: (i) immediately cease (or cause to cease) all marketing, promotional and advertising efforts related to the Non-Complying Certified Product in whatever form, including without limitation, the distribution of print or electronic advertisements and website usage; and (ii) within thirty (30) days of the Notice, destroy (and certify the destruction of), at its own costs, all marketing, promotional and advertising materials and collateral related to the Non-Complying Certified Product.

    tags: standards

  • tags: standards

  • Third, note that Buzz is built to be compatible with open standards that enable the distributed production and processing of real time updates. In fact, where standards didn’t exist, ones were set in place, with the philosophy to enable developers working with existing web technologies to apply them with minimal effort. This could be the most significant contribution of the entire project in the long run

    tags: standards

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Advertisements
h1

Links 11/06/2013

November 6, 2013
  • nist smartgrid standards

    tags: standards

  • tags: standards

  • tags: bylaws standards open source

  • tags: rand frand standards

  • tags: standards itut

  • open web and web stuff

    tags: web standards open

  • As Google, arguably the most powerful company in the Internet industry, needs to find ways to continue growing, it inevitably faces a temptation: Does it keep developing features that work with those of other companies, even competitors, making it easy for users to share their data, conversations and content across the Web? Or does it roll out products that only work with Google sites to nudge users to spend more time on its properties?

    More concisely, does it remain a champion of the so-called “Open Web,” or move toward a closed model similar to AOL at the beginning or Facebook now?

    tags: standards

  • David Recordon listed a few already in a previous mail. I added a few, and I’m pretty sure I have forgotten many of them (in fact it’s quite amazing to see the landscape around identity management and social networks). Some have overlaps or address slightly different goals. Do we have a one liner description for each of them? For example, both wikipedia and the opensocial fails to explain what it is about in the first paragraph.

    tags: standards

  • RecentPatentCaseLawAffectingTechnicalStandards.PDF –

    tags: patent law standards ibm

  • If you haven’t seen a lot of applications built in the last few weeks that leverage the Google Buzz API, it’s because there aren’t any. In fact, Google hasn’t yet rolled out any API for Buzz. According to the company, this isn’t due to any backroom dealings where they plan to introduce proprietary code and hooks that tie activity to their platform, but instead, because they wanted to be sure they could first build a product that in fullness leveraged open Web standards, and start with that foundation to deliver an interoperable system that could continue to function even if Google were to “disappear off the face of the earth”.

    tags: standards

  • In a response to my article here, DeWitt Clinton of Google defined what he deemed the definition of “open” to be.  According to DeWitt, “the first is licensing of the protocols themselves, with respect to who can legally implement them and/or who can legally fork them.”  I argue if this were the case, then why didn’t Google clone and standardize what Facebook is doing, where many, many more developers are already integrating and writing code for?  Facebook itself is part of the Open Web Foundation, and applies the same principles as Google to allowing others to clone the APIs they provide to developers.

    tags: standards google

  • As part of a series of interviews with W3C Members to learn more about their support for standards and participation in W3C, I’m talking to Paul Cotton from Microsoft and co-Chair of the W3C HTML Working Group.

    First, let me thank you personally on becoming a co-chair of the W3C HTML Working Group. I am very happy with Microsoft’s commitment to the HTML Working Group and to HTML 5. Microsoft is collaborating very actively, and helping drive consensus around many HTML 5 proposals related to Canvas, Accessibility and Extensibility.

    Q. Microsoft participates in a large number (~30) of W3C Working Groups and has shown this level of commitment for many years. You sent 12 people to the November 2009 HTML Working Group face-to-face meeting, an unusually high number of people from a single company for a face-to-face meeting. Why is Microsoft investing so heavily in the W3C HTML 5 effort?

    tags: microsoft standards

  • The practical implications of the Federal Circuit’s Transcore decision could be significant.  Partly to avoid patent exhaustion, it has become common practice for many patent owners to grant limited personal covenants not to sue rather than licenses – often expressly retaining the right to assert their patents against downstream customers of the covenantee.  The Federal Circuit has now expressly confirmed what Quanta and other cases before it already implied: that for purposes of patent exhaustion a covenant not to sue amounts to authorization just as a license does.  As Quanta made clear, patent owners seeking to avoid exhaustion must limit the scope of the licensee’s or covenantee’s authorization to sell.  Sales exceeding the scope of the authorization remain unauthorized, and are themselves infringing, and thus do not trigger exhaustion.  What courts will not allow, however, is the grant of patent immunity to a party upstream while a patent owner retains the ability to assert its patents against downstream customers.

    More generally, patent owners and licensees or covenantees will need to consider carefully the implications of granting or obtaining a covenant not to sue instead of a license.  While a covenant may be treated like a license for many purposes – including, for example, with respect to patent marking – it may still afford less protection than a license in the event of bankruptcy or a transfer of the underlying patent to a third party who does not agree to be bound by the covenant.

    All licensors should be aware of Transcore’s holding regarding implied licenses by virtue of estoppel.  Because such a license is, in effect, a license implied-in-law, disclaimers of implied licenses and even express exclusions of certain patents may not succeed in defeating the implication of a license as to patents that are necessary to practice the expressly licensed patents.

    The impact of the Static Control and Hitachi decisions is less clear at this time. Both are district court decisions that are clearly inconsist

    tags: standards patent exhaustion

  • 1) Open protocols and formats mean two specific things to me:

    The first is licensing of the protocols themselves, with respect to who can legally implement them and/or who can legally fork them. This involves patent and copyright licenses (and sadly yes, lawyers). While a small number of us are always debating the finer details of how it works, eventually there’s a binary aspect to it: a protocol has to be formally licensed for reuse for it to be open.

    The second is the license by which the data itself is made available. (The Terms and Conditions, so to speak.) The formal definitions are less well established here (thus far!), but it ultimately has to do with who owns the data and what proprietary rights over it are asserted.

    In an ideal, interoperable, and decentralized world, implementors can both clone and/or fork the protocols as desired (without asking permission), and users can get their own data back out without needing to follow to someone else’s restrictions about how they use it.

    It’s important to look at both aspects above when judging if a system is open. Can I legally fork and/or clone it? And, am I entering into a arrangement that places limitations on my rights to use my own data? (And the corollary, are other people entering into a arrangement that puts limitations on their rights to share their own data with me?)

    If the answer to either or both is “no”, then no matter what we may want to believe, regrettably it’s not an open system. (And don’t be misled—even the worst data silos are obviously going to enable some way to get data out, otherwise no one would put anything in. The question is what do you have give up to get it back out? It’s a question I believe more people should be asking, and asking it before they turn their data over to some network.)

    So when I say “open” I don’t just throw the word around casually. I mean those two very precise things: what is the license, and what are the Terms. It’s not hand-waving, and it’s not marketing. It’s technical, and it’s legal. Boring to some,

    tags: standards

  • The other co-founder of Streamy, Jonathan Gray, will be joining David Recordon(previously with Six Apart) and Monica Keller (previously with MySpace) and become part of the social networking giant’s open source division.

    tags: standards facebook

  • tags: patents standards

  • Webfinger and distributed networks

    tags: standards

  • 1.1.1 Failure to Comply. In the event Alliance determines, in its sole discretion, that the Certified Product(s) fails to comply with requirements set forth in DLNA’s Test Plan Document (“Non-Complying Certified Product(s)”), Licensee shall, upon written notice by Alliance (the “Notice”), take the following action:
    1.1.1.1 Licensee shall: (i) immediately cease (or cause to cease) all sale and distribution of the Non-Complying Certified Product, including without limitation, all sales activities by third party retailers acting on Licensee’s behalf; and (ii) within thirty (30) days of Licensee’s receipt of the Notice (the “Removal Period”), remove or cause to be removed, at Licensee’s expense, the Non-Complying Certified Product from the marketplace. Upon the expiration of the Removal Period, Licensee shall destroy (and certify the destruction of), at its own cost, the Non-Complying Certified Product.
    1.1.1.2 Licensee shall: (i) immediately cease (or cause to cease) all marketing, promotional and advertising efforts related to the Non-Complying Certified Product in whatever form, including without limitation, the distribution of print or electronic advertisements and website usage; and (ii) within thirty (30) days of the Notice, destroy (and certify the destruction of), at its own costs, all marketing, promotional and advertising materials and collateral related to the Non-Complying Certified Product.

    tags: standards

  • tags: standards

  • Third, note that Buzz is built to be compatible with open standards that enable the distributed production and processing of real time updates. In fact, where standards didn’t exist, ones were set in place, with the philosophy to enable developers working with existing web technologies to apply them with minimal effort. This could be the most significant contribution of the entire project in the long run

    tags: standards

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.