index.html 40.3 KB

Raw Blame History Permalink

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-US"
lang="en-US">
<head>
<meta name="generator"
content="HTML Tidy for Linux/x86 (vers 1st March 2002), see www.w3.org" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>Patent Policy Working Group Royalty-Free Patent
Policy</title>
<style type="text/css">
/*<![CDATA[*/
<!--
.toc { list-style: none outside; }
li.tocline1 { font-weight: bold; }
li.tocline2, li.tocline3 { font-weight: normal; }
-->

/*]]>*/
</style>

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-WD" />
</head>
<body>
<div class="head"><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C"
height="48" width="72" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home" />
</a>

<h1><a id="title" name="title">Patent Policy Working Group<br />
Royalty-Free Patent Policy</a></h1>

<h2><a id="subtitle" name="subtitle">W3C Proposed Policy 19 March
2003</a></h2>

<dl>
<dt>This version:</dt>

<dd><a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-patent-policy-20030319/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-patent-policy-20030319/</a></dd>

<dt>Latest version:</dt>

<dd><a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/">http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/</a></dd>

<dt>Previous version:</dt>

<dd><a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114/">http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114/</a></dd>

<dt>Editor:</dt>

<dd>Daniel J. Weitzner, W3C/MIT, <a
href="mailto:djweitzner@w3.org">djweitzner@w3.org</a></dd>
</dl>

<p class="copyright"><a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a>
© 2000-2003 <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><acronym
title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</acronym></a><sup>®</sup> (<a
href="http://www.lcs.mit.edu/"><acronym
title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</acronym></a>, <a
href="http://www.ercim.org/"><acronym
title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">
ERCIM</acronym></a>, <a href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>),
All Rights Reserved. W3C <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer">
liability</a>, <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks">
trademark</a>, <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents">document
use</a> and <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software">software
licensing</a> rules apply.</p>
</div>

<hr title="Separator for header" />
<h2><a id="Abstract" name="Abstract">Abstract</a></h2>

<p>The W3C Royalty-Free Patent Policy governs the handling of
patents in the process of producing Web standards. The goal of this
policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy
can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.</p>

<h2><a id="Status" name="Status">Status of This Document</a></h2>

<p>This is the proposed W3C Patent Policy produced by the Patent
Policy Working Group (<a href="/2001/ppwg/">PPWG</a>) for review by
the W3C Advisory Committee and interested members of the public.
The Patent Policy Working Group has agreed to circulate this
Working Draft as the final proposed patent policy having resolved
all <a
href="http://www.w3.org/2001/ppwg/rf-patent-policy-lc-issues.html">issues</a>
raised since the publication of their 14 November 2002 <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20021114/">Last
Call Working Draft</a>. The public and W3C Members are invited to
send comments on this document to the <a
href="mailto:www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org">www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org</a>
mailing list (<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/">public
archive</a>). W3C Members may also use <a
href="mailto:w3c-patentpolicy-review@w3.org">w3c-patentpolicy-review@w3.org</a>
(<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-patentpolicy-review/">archive</a>
[Member only link]). Comments may be sent through 30 April 2003.</p>

<p>At the close of the Advisory Committee review period, the
Director will issue a final policy, taking into account comments
from the W3C Membership and the public. During the development of
the Patent Policy we have used the W3C Recommendation track to help
solicit Member and public comment. As the deliverable of the PPWG
satisfied by this document is a policy and not a technical report,
the result of the Director's decision on this document will be a
policy akin to the W3C Process Document, not a Recommendation.</p>

<p>There are no patent disclosures relevant to this document.</p>

<p>An informative <a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/03/19-patentsummary.html">summary</a>
of the proposed policy is available.</p>

<p>This is a public W3C Working Draft. <em>It is a draft document
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at
any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as
reference material or to cite them as other than "work in
progress."</em></p>

<p>A list of all <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Reports">
W3C technical reports</a> can be found at <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">http://www.w3.org/TR/</a>.</p>

<h2><a id="toc" name="toc">Table of Contents</a></h2>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline1"><a href="#Abstract">Abstract</a></li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#Status">Status of This
Document</a></li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-Overview">1. Overview</a></li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-Licensing">2. Licensing Goals
for W3C Recommendations</a></li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-Obligations">3. Licensing
Obligations of Working Group Participants</a>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-W3C-RF-license">3.1. W3C RF
Licensing Requirements for All Working Group Participants</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-non-participants">3.2.
Limitation on Licensing Requirement for Non-Participating
Members</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-submissions">3.3. Licensing
Commitments in W3C Submissions</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-invited">3.4. Note on Licensing
Commitments for Invited Experts</a></li>
</ul>
</li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-Exclusion">4. Exclusion From W3C
RF Licensing Requirements</a>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-exclusion-with">4.1. Exclusion
With Continued Participation</a></li>

<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-exclusion-resign">4.2. Exclusion
and Resignation From the Working Group</a></li>

<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-join">4.3. Joining an Already
Established Working Group</a></li>

<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-exclude-app">4.4. Exclusion
Procedures for Pending, Unpublished Patent Applications</a></li>

<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-exclude-mech">4.5. Exclusion
Mechanics</a></li>
</ul>
</li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-Requirements">5. W3C
Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements</a></li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-Disclosure">6. Disclosure</a>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-requirements">6.1.
Disclosure Requirements</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-exemption">6.2.
Disclosure Exemption</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-requests">6.3.
Disclosure Requests</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-contents">6.4.
Disclosure Contents</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-published">6.5. Disclosure of
Laid-Open or Published Applications</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-pending">6.6. Disclosure of
Pending, Unpublished Applications</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-good-faith">6.7. Good Faith
Disclosure Standards</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-timing">6.8. Timing
of Disclosure Obligations</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-termination">6.9.
Termination of Disclosure Obligations</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-invite">6.10.
Disclosure Obligations of Invited Experts</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-disclosure-public">6.11.
Disclosures to Be Publicly Available on Recommendation
Track</a></li>
</ul>
</li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-Exception">7. Exception
Handling</a>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-PAG-formation">7.1. PAG
Formation</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-PAG-post-Recommendation">7.2.
PAG Formation After a Recommendation Is Issued</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-PAG-composition">7.3. PAG
Composition</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-PAG-procedures">7.4. PAG
Procedures</a>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-PAG-procedures-timing">7.4.1.
PAG Formation Timing</a></li>

<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-PAG-procedures-charter">7.4.2.
PAG Charter Requirements</a></li>
</ul>
</li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#sec-PAG-conclude">7.5. PAG
Conclusion</a>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-PAG-conclude-possible">7.5.1.
Possible PAG Conclusions</a></li>

<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-PAG-conclude-outcome">7.5.2. PAG
Outcome</a></li>

<li class="tocline3"><a href="#sec-PAG-conclude-alternate">7.5.3.
Procedure for Considering Alternate Licensing Terms</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#def-essential">8. Definition of
Essential Claims</a>

<ul class="toc">
<li class="tocline2"><a href="#def-essential-definition">8.1.
Essential Claims</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#def-essential-exclusions">8.2.
Limitations on Scope of Essential Claims</a></li>

<li class="tocline2"><a href="#def-essential-requirements">8.3.
Definition of Normative, Optional and Informative</a></li>
</ul>
</li>

<li class="tocline1"><a href="#sec-References">References</a></li>

<li class="tocline1"><a
href="#sec-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></li>
</ul>

<hr />
<h2><a id="sec-Overview" name="sec-Overview">1. Overview</a></h2>

<p>This patent policy describes:</p>

<ol>
<li>licensing goals for W3C Recommendations</li>

<li>licensing obligations that Working Group participants will
undertake as a condition of Working Group participation, along with
means of excluding specific patents from those obligations</li>

<li>the definition of a W3C Royalty-Free license</li>

<li>disclosure rules for W3C Members</li>

<li>an exception handling process for situations in which the
Royalty-Free status of a specification comes under question</li>

<li>definition of Essential Claims</li>
</ol>

<p>All numbered sections of this document (1-8), as well as
hyperlinks to material within and outside of this document, are
normative.</p>

<h2><a id="sec-Licensing" name="sec-Licensing">2. Licensing Goals
for W3C Recommendations</a></h2>

<p>In order to promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C
seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a <a
href="#def-RF">Royalty-Free</a> (RF) basis. Subject to the
conditions of this policy, W3C will not approve a Recommendation if
it is aware that <a href="#def-essential">Essential Claims</a>
exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms.</p>

<p>To this end, Working Group charters will include a reference to
this policy and a requirement that specifications produced by the
Working Group will be implementable on an RF basis, to the best
ability of the Working Group and the Consortium.</p>

<h2><a id="sec-Obligations" name="sec-Obligations">3. Licensing
Obligations of Working Group Participants</a></h2>

<p>The following obligations shall apply to all participants in W3C
Working Groups. These obligations will be referenced from each
Working Group charter and Calls for Participation.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-W3C-RF-license" name="sec-W3C-RF-license">3.1. W3C
RF Licensing Requirements for All Working Group
Participants</a></h3>

<p>As a condition of participating in a Working Group, each
participant (W3C Members, W3C Team members, invited experts, and
members of the public) shall agree to make any <a
href="#def-essential">Essential Claims</a> that the participant
owns, or under which the participant has the right to grant
licenses without obligation of payment or other consideration to an
unrelated third party, available under <a href="#def-RF">W3C RF
licensing requirements</a> upon request. With the exception of the
provisions of section 4 below, W3C RF licensing obligations
described in this policy are binding on participants for the life
of the patents in question, regardless of changes in participation
status or W3C Membership.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-non-participants" name="sec-non-participants">3.2.
Limitation on Licensing Requirement for Non-Participating
Members</a></h3>

<p>Only the affirmative act of joining a Working Group, or
otherwise agreeing to the licensing terms described here, will
obligate a Member to the W3C RF licensing commitments. Mere
Membership in W3C alone, without other factors, does not give rise
to the RF licensing obligation under this policy.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-submissions" name="sec-submissions">3.3. Licensing
Commitments in W3C Submissions</a></h3>

<p>At the time a <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/submission.html#Submission">
W3C Submission</a> [<cite><a
href="#ref-PROCESS">PROCESS</a></cite>, section 8] is made, all
Submitters and any others who provide copyright licenses associated
with the submitted document must indicate whether or not each
entity (Submitters and other licensors) will offer a license
according to the <a href="#def-RF">W3C RF licensing
requirements</a> for any portion of the Submission that is
subsequently incorporated in a W3C Recommendation. The W3C Team may
acknowledge the Submission if the answer to the licensing
commitment is either affirmative or negative, and shall not
acknowledge the Submission if no response is provided.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-invited" name="sec-invited">3.4. Note on Licensing
Commitments for Invited Experts</a></h3>

<p>Invited experts participate in Working Groups in their
individual capacity. An invited expert is only obliged to license
those claims over which s/he exercises control.</p>

<h2><a id="sec-Exclusion" name="sec-Exclusion">4. Exclusion From
W3C RF Licensing Requirements</a></h2>

<p>Under the following conditions, Working Group participants may
exclude specifically identified and disclosed Essential Claims from
the overall W3C RF licensing requirements:</p>

<h3><a id="sec-exclusion-with" name="sec-exclusion-with">4.1.
Exclusion With Continued Participation</a></h3>

<p>Specific Essential Claims may be excluded from the <a
href="#sec-W3C-RF-license">W3C RF licensing requirements</a> by a
participant who seeks to remain in the Working Group only if that
participant indicates its refusal to license specific claims no
later than 150 days after the publication of the first public
Working Draft by specifically <a
href="#sec-Disclosure">disclosing</a> Essential Claims that will
not be licensed on W3C RF terms. A participant who excludes
Essential Claims may continue to participate in the Working
Group.</p>

<p>If any claims are made essential by the final Recommendation as
a result of subject matter not present or apparent in the latest
public Working Draft published within 90 days after the first
public Working Draft, the participant may exclude these new
Essential Claims, and only these claims, by using this exclusion
procedure within 60 days after the publication of the Last Call
Working Draft. After that point, no claims may be excluded. (Note
that if material new subject matter is added after Last Call, then
a new Last Call draft will have to be produced, thereby allowing
another exclusion period for 60 days after that most recent Last
Call draft.)</p>

<h3><a id="sec-exclusion-resign" name="sec-exclusion-resign">4.2.
Exclusion and Resignation From the Working Group</a></h3>

<p>A participant may resign from the Working Group within 90 days
after the publication of the first public Working Draft and be
excused from all licensing commitments arising out of Working Group
participation.</p>

<p>If a participant leaves the Working Group later than 90 days
after the publication of the first public Working Draft, that
participant is only bound to license Essential Claims based on
subject matter contained in the latest Working Draft published
before the participant resigned from the Working Group. In
addition, departing participants have 60 days after their actual
resignation to exclude Essential Claims based on subject matter
that is contained in such latest Working Draft and not present or
apparent in the latest Working Draft published within 90 days after
the first public Working Draft. (The participant follows the same
procedures specified in this section 4 for excluding claims in
issued patents, published applications, and unpublished
applications.) Participants resigning from a Working Group are
still subject to all disclosure obligations described in section
6.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-join" name="sec-join">4.3. Joining an Already
Established Working Group</a></h3>

<p>Participants who join a Working Group more than 90 days after
the publication of the first public Working Draft must exclude
Essential Claims covered in the latest Working Draft published
within 90 days after the first public Working Draft at the later of
150 days after the publication of the first public Working Draft or
upon joining the Working Group.</p>

<h3><a name="sec-exclude-app" id="sec-exclude-app">4.4. Exclusion
Procedures for Pending, Unpublished Patent Applications</a></h3>

<p>Exclusion of Essential Claims in pending, unpublished
applications follows the procedures for exclusion of issued claims
and claims in published applications in section 4.1 through 4.3,
except that the final deadline for exclusion of claims under
application is at Last Call plus 60 days for any material,
regardless of whether or not it was contained in the documents
referenced in the Call for Exclusion document. Nevertheless,
participants have a good faith obligation to make such exclusions
as soon as is practical after the publication of the first working
draft that includes the relevant technology.</p>

<p>Any exclusion of an Essential Claim in an unpublished
application must provide either:</p>

<ol>
<li>the text of the filed application; or</li>

<li>identification of the specific part(s) of the specification
whose implementation makes the excluded claim essential.</li>
</ol>

<p>If option 2 is chosen, the effect of the exclusion will be
limited to the identified part(s) of the specification.</p>

<h3><a name="sec-exclude-mech" id="sec-exclude-mech">4.5. Exclusion
Mechanics</a></h3>

<p>A Call for Exclusion will be issued by the Working Group Team
Contact indicating the relevant documents against which
participants must make exclusion statements as well as precise
dates and deadlines for making any exclusions. In case there is any
dispute about the dates for exclusion, the dates indicated in the
Call for Exclusion are controlling. The Call for Exclusion will be
sent to the Working Group mailing list and the Advisory Committee
Representatives of all organizations participating in the Working
Group. In the event that a Working Group issues more than one
Recommendation-track document, the exclusion procedure will be
employed for each series of documents individually.</p>

<h2><a id="sec-Requirements" name="sec-Requirements">5. W3C
Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements</a></h2>

<p>With respect to a Recommendation developed under this policy, a
<a name="def-RF" id="def-RF">W3C Royalty-Free</a> license shall
mean a non-assignable, non-sublicensable license to make, have
made, use, sell, have sold, offer to sell, import, and distribute
and dispose of implementations of the Recommendation that:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>1. shall be available to all, worldwide, whether or not they are
W3C Members;</p>

<p>2. shall extend to all <a href="#def-essential">Essential
Claims</a> owned or controlled by the licensor;</p>

<p>3. may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and
to what is required by the Recommendation;</p>

<p>4. may be conditioned on a grant of a reciprocal RF license (as
defined in this policy) to all <a href="#def-essential">Essential
Claims</a> owned or controlled by the licensee. A reciprocal
license may be required to be available to all, and a reciprocal
license may itself be conditioned on a further reciprocal license
from all.</p>

<p>5. may not be conditioned on payment of royalties, fees or other
consideration;</p>

<p>6. may be suspended with respect to any licensee when licensor
is sued by licensee for infringement of claims essential to
implement any W3C Recommendation;</p>

<p>7. may not impose any further conditions or restrictions on the
use of any technology, intellectual property rights, or other
restrictions on behavior of the licensee, but may include
reasonable, customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of
the license relationship such as the following: choice of law and
dispute resolution;</p>

<p>8. shall not be considered accepted by an implementer who
manifests an intent <strong>not</strong> to accept the terms of the
W3C Royalty-Free license as offered by the licensor.</p>

<p>License term:</p>

<p>9. The RF license conforming to the requirements in this policy
shall be made available by the licensor as long as the
Recommendation is in effect. The term of such license shall be for
the life of the patents in question, subject to the limitations of
5(10).</p>

<p>10. If the Recommendation is rescinded by W3C, then no new
licenses need be granted but any licenses granted before the
Recommendation was rescinded shall remain in effect.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>All Working Group participants are encouraged to provide a
contact from which licensing information can be obtained and other
relevant licensing information. Any such information will be made
publicly available along with the patent disclosures for the
Working Group in question.</p>

<h2><a id="sec-Disclosure" name="sec-Disclosure">6.
Disclosure</a></h2>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-requirements"
name="sec-disclosure-requirements">6.1. Disclosure
Requirements</a></h3>

<p>Disclosure is required when an Advisory Committee Representative
(AC Rep), or any other party in a Member organization who receives
the disclosure request, has actual knowledge of a patent which the
party believes is likely to be an Essential Claim with respect to a
specification. Anyone who receives a disclosure request in a Member
organization and who has such knowledge must inform that AC Rep.
Where disclosure is required, the AC Rep will do so.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-exemption"
name="sec-disclosure-exemption">6.2. Disclosure Exemption</a></h3>

<p>The disclosure obligation as to a particular claim is satisfied
if the holder of the claim has made a commitment to license that
claim under <a href="#def-RF">W3C RF licensing requirements</a> and
the claim is no longer subject to exclusion under section 4. An
Essential Claim is no longer subject to exclusion if a patent
holder has affirmatively agreed to license the Essential Claim
(effectively waiving its right to exclude such patent under section
4) or if the relevant exclusion period under section 4 has
lapsed.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-requests"
name="sec-disclosure-requests">6.3. Disclosure Requests</a></h3>

<p>Disclosure requests will be included in the "Status of This
Document" section of each Recommendation track document as it
reaches each new maturity level (Working Draft, Last Call Working
Draft, Candidate Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation,
Recommendation). Separate requests may be issued by the W3C to any
party suspected of having knowledge of Essential Claims. Such
disclosure requests will instruct the recipient to respond through
their AC Rep (in the case of Members) or a W3C contact (in the case
of non-Members). Disclosure requests other than those that appear
in the specification itself should be directed to the AC Rep.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-contents"
name="sec-disclosure-contents">6.4. Disclosure Contents</a></h3>

<p>Disclosure statements must include:</p>

<ol>
<li>the patent number, but need not mention specific claims</li>

<li>the Working Group and/or Recommendation to which it
applies</li>
</ol>

<p>The disclosure statements should be sent to the relevant
disclosure mailing list, currently
&lt;patent-disclosure@w3.org&gt;.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-published" name="sec-published">6.5. Disclosure of
Laid-Open or Published Applications</a></h3>

<p>In the case of laid-open or published applications, the Member's
good faith disclosure obligation extends to unpublished amended
and/or added claims that have been granted by relevant legal
authorities and that the Member believes may contain Essential
Claims. To satisfy the disclosure obligation for such claims, the
Member shall either:</p>

<ol>
<li>disclose such claims, or</li>

<li>identify those portions of the W3C specification likely to be
covered by such claims.</li>
</ol>

<h3><a id="sec-pending" name="sec-pending">6.6. Disclosure of
Pending, Unpublished Applications</a></h3>

<p>If a W3C Member includes claims in a patent application and such
claims were developed based on information from a W3C Working Group
or W3C document, the Member must disclose the existence of such
pending unpublished applications.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-good-faith" name="sec-good-faith">6.7. Good Faith
Disclosure Standards</a></h3>

<p>Satisfaction of the disclosure requirement does not require that
the discloser perform a patent search or any analysis of the
relationship between the patents that the Member organization holds
and the specification in question.</p>

<p>Disclosure of third party patents is only required where the
Advisory Committee Representative or Working Group participant has
been made aware that the third party patent holder or applicant has
asserted that its patent contains <a
href="#def-essential">Essential Claims</a>, unless such disclosure
would breach a pre-existing non-disclosure obligation.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-timing" name="sec-disclosure-timing">6.8.
Timing of Disclosure Obligations</a></h3>

<p>The disclosure obligation is an ongoing obligation that begins
with the Call for Participation. Full satisfaction of the
disclosure obligation may not be possible until later in the
process when the design is more complete. In any case, disclosure
as soon as practically possible is required.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-termination"
name="sec-disclosure-termination">6.9. Termination of Disclosure
Obligations</a></h3>

<p>The disclosure obligation terminates when the Recommendation is
published or when the Working Group terminates.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-invite"
name="sec-disclosure-invite">6.10. Disclosure Obligations of
Invited Experts</a></h3>

<p>Invited experts or members of the public participating in a
Working Group must comply with disclosure obligations to the extent
of their own personal knowledge.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-disclosure-public"
name="sec-disclosure-public">6.11. Disclosures to Be Publicly
Available on Recommendation Track</a></h3>

<p>Patent disclosure information for each specification on the
Recommendation track will be made public along with each public
Working Draft issued by the Working Group.</p>

<h2><a id="sec-Exception" name="sec-Exception">7. Exception
Handling</a></h2>

<h3><a id="sec-PAG-formation" name="sec-PAG-formation">7.1. PAG
Formation</a></h3>

<p>In the event a patent has been disclosed that may be essential,
but is not available under <a href="#def-RF">W3C RF licensing
requirements</a>, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to
resolve the conflict. The PAG is an ad-hoc group constituted
specifically in relation to the Working Group with the conflict. A
PAG may also be formed without such a disclosure if a PAG could
help avoid anticipated patent problems. During the time that the
PAG is operating, the Working Group may continue its technical work
within the bounds of its charter.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-PAG-post-Recommendation"
name="sec-PAG-post-Recommendation">7.2. PAG Formation After a
Recommendation Is Issued</a></h3>

<p>A PAG may also be convened in the event Essential Claims are
discovered after a Recommendation is issued. In this case the PAG
will be open to any interested Member, though the PAG may choose to
meet without the holder of the Essential Claims in question.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-PAG-composition" name="sec-PAG-composition">7.3. PAG
Composition</a></h3>

<p>The PAG is composed of:</p>

<ul>
<li>Advisory Committee Representatives of each W3C Member
organization participating in the Working Group (or alternate
designated by the AC Rep)</li>

<li>Working Group Team Contact</li>

<li>W3C counsel</li>

<li>Working Group Chair, <em>ex officio</em></li>

<li>Domain Leader responsible for the Working Group</li>

<li>Others suggested by the Working Group Chair and/or the Team
with the approval of the Director</li>
</ul>

<p>W3C Member participants in the PAG should be authorized to
represent their organization's views on patent licensing issues.
Any participant in the PAG may also be represented by legal
counsel, though this is not required. Invited experts are not
entitled to participate in the PAG, though the PAG may chose to
invite any qualified experts who would be able to assist the PAG in
its determinations.</p>

<p>W3C expects to provide qualified legal staffing to all PAGs in
the form of a Team member who develops experience with the PAG
process and patent issues at W3C. Legal staff to the PAG will
represent the interests of the Consortium as a whole.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-PAG-procedures" name="sec-PAG-procedures">7.4. PAG
Procedures</a></h3>

<h4><a id="sec-PAG-procedures-timing"
name="sec-PAG-procedures-timing">7.4.1. PAG Formation
Timing</a></h4>

<p>The PAG will be convened by the Working Group Team Contact,
based on a charter developed initially by the Team. The timing for
convening the PAG is at the discretion of the Director, based on
consultation with the Chair of the Working Group. In some cases,
convening a PAG before a specific patent disclosure is made may be
useful. In other cases, it may be that the PAG can better resolve
the licensing problems when the specification is at the Last Call
or Candidate Recommendation maturity level.</p>

<h4><a id="sec-PAG-procedures-charter"
name="sec-PAG-procedures-charter">7.4.2. PAG Charter
Requirements</a></h4>

<p>The charter should include:</p>

<ul>
<li>clear goals for the PAG, especially a statement of the
question(s) the PAG is to answer.</li>

<li>duration.</li>

<li>confidentiality status, which must follow the underlying
Working Group (Member only, public, etc.).</li>
</ul>

<p>The PAG charter must specify deadlines for completion of
individual work items it takes on. The PAG, once convened, may
propose changes to its charter as appropriate, to be accepted based
on consensus of the PAG participants. The Team will choose a member
of the PAG to serve as Chair. A single PAG may exist for the
duration of the Working Group with which it is associated if
needed.</p>

<p>In order to obtain input from the interested public at large, as
soon as the PAG is convened, the PAG charter will be made public,
along with all of the patent disclosure and licensing statements
applicable to the Working Group in question.</p>

<h3><a id="sec-PAG-conclude" name="sec-PAG-conclude">7.5. PAG
Conclusion</a></h3>

<h4><a id="sec-PAG-conclude-possible"
name="sec-PAG-conclude-possible">7.5.1. Possible PAG
Conclusions</a></h4>

<p>After appropriate consultation, the PAG may conclude:</p>

<ol>
<li>The initial concern has been resolved, enabling the Working
Group to continue.</li>

<li>The Working Group should be instructed to consider designing
around the identified claims.</li>

<li>The Team should seek further information and evaluation,
including and not limited to evaluation of the patents in question
or the terms under which W3C RF licensing requirements may be
met.</li>

<li>The Working Group should be terminated.</li>

<li>The Recommendation (if it has already been issued) should be
rescinded.</li>

<li>Alternative licensing terms should be considered. The procedure
in section 7.5.3 must be followed.</li>
</ol>

<h4><a id="sec-PAG-conclude-outcome"
name="sec-PAG-conclude-outcome">7.5.2. PAG Outcome</a></h4>

<p>Outcomes 4, 5 or 6 require an Advisory Committee review and
Director's decision. In any case, the PAG must state its Proposal
and reasons in a public W3C document.</p>

<h4><a id="sec-PAG-conclude-alternate"
name="sec-PAG-conclude-alternate">7.5.3. Procedure for Considering
Alternate Licensing Terms</a></h4>

<p>After having made every effort to resolve the conflict through
options 1, 2, and 3 under 7.5.1, the PAG, by <a
href="/Consortium/Process/groups.html#WGVotes">consensus</a>, may
propose that specifically identified patented technology be
included in the Recommendation even though such claims are not
available according to the W3C RF licensing requirements of this
policy. The PAG Proposal must explain:</p>

<ul>
<li>why the chartered goals of the Working Group cannot be met
without inclusion of the identified technology;</li>

<li>how the proposed licensing terms will be consistent with
widespread adoption.</li>
</ul>

<p>The PAG Proposal must include:</p>

<ul>
<li>a complete list of claims and licensing terms of the proposed
alternative arrangements; and,</li>

<li>a proposed charter for the Working Group, unless the
Recommendation has been issued and no new work is required.</li>
</ul>

<p>If the Director determines that the PAG Proposal is the best
alternative consistent with the W3C mission, the interests of the
Web community, and is clearly justified despite the expressed
preference of the W3C Membership for RF licensing, then the
Proposal shall be circulated for public comment and Advisory
Committee review. The Director may also circulate the Proposal for
Advisory Committee review without such endorsement. Should the PAG
Proposal be rejected, then either sub-paragraph 4 or 5 will apply
as appropriate, without further action of the Advisory Committee.
Members of the Working Group who are bound to RF terms are not
released from their obligations by virtue of the PAG Proposal
alone. As with any newly chartered Working Group, new commitments
must be made, along with possible exclusions. In order to expedite
the process, the PAG Proposal should consider whether additional
claims would be excluded under the new charter and include such
information in the PAG Proposal.</p>

<h2><a name="def-essential" id="def-essential">8. Definition of
Essential Claims</a></h2>

<h3><a id="def-essential-definition"
name="def-essential-definition">8.1. Essential Claims</a></h3>

<p>"Essential Claims" shall mean all claims in any patent or patent
application with an effective filing date prior to the publication
of the first public Working Draft of the specification and
extending until one year and one day after the publication of the
first public Working Draft, in any jurisdiction in the world that
would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the
Recommendation. A claim is necessarily infringed hereunder only
when it is not possible to avoid infringing it because there is no
non-infringing alternative for implementing the normative portions
of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing alternative
shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the
specification becomes a Recommendation.</p>

<h3><a id="def-essential-exclusions"
name="def-essential-exclusions">8.2. Limitations on the Scope of
Definition of Essential Claims</a></h3>

<p>The following are expressly excluded from and shall not be
deemed to constitute Essential Claims:</p>

<ol class="definitions">
<li>any claims other than as set forth above even if contained in
the same patent as Essential Claims; and</li>

<li>claims which would be infringed only by:

<ul>
<li>portions of an implementation that are not specified in the
normative portions of the Recommendation, or</li>

<li>enabling technologies that may be necessary to make or use any
product or portion thereof that complies with the Recommendation
and are not themselves expressly set forth in the Recommendation
(e.g., semiconductor manufacturing technology, compiler technology,
object-oriented technology, basic operating system technology, and
the like); or</li>

<li>the implementation of technology developed elsewhere and merely
incorporated by reference in the body of the Recommendation.</li>
</ul>
</li>

<li>design patents and design registrations.</li>
</ol>

<h3><a id="def-essential-requirements"
name="def-essential-requirements">8.3. Definition of Normative,
Optional and Informative</a></h3>

<p>For purposes of this definition, the normative portions of the
Recommendation shall be deemed to include only architectural and
interoperability requirements. Optional features in the RFC 2119
[<cite><a href="#ref-KEYWORDS">KEYWORDS</a></cite>] sense are
considered normative unless they are specifically identified as
informative. Implementation examples or any other material that
merely illustrate the requirements of the Recommendation are
informative, rather than normative.</p>

<hr />
<h2><a id="sec-References"
name="sec-References">References</a></h2>

<dl>
<dt><a id="ref-ACTION" name="ref-ACTION">[ACTION]</a></dt>

<dd><a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Nov/0147">
FW: Action Item from Advisory Committee Discussion on Patent
Policy</a>, D. Weitzner, 21 November 2001. This email message is
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Nov/0147.</dd>

<dt><a id="ref-KEYWORDS" name="ref-KEYWORDS">[KEYWORDS]</a></dt>

<dd><cite><a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt">Key
words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a></cite>, S.
Bradner. The Internet Society, March 1997. This <abbr
title="Request for Comments">RFC</abbr> is available by <abbr
title="File Transfer Protocol">FTP</abbr> at
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2119.txt.</dd>

<dt><a id="ref-PROCESS" name="ref-PROCESS">[PROCESS]</a></dt>

<dd><cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">World
Wide Web Consortium Process Document</a></cite>, I. Jacobs, Editor.
W3C, 19 July 2001. The latest version of this document is
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process.</dd>
</dl>

<h2><a id="sec-acknowledgments"
name="sec-acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></h2>

<p>W3C's evolving patent policy has been informed by help,
comments, criticism, and occasional rants by W3C Members, many
voices from the independent developer and Open Source/Free Software
communities, W3C Advisory Committee Representatives, the W3C Team,
the W3C Advisory Board, and participants in the Patent Policy
Working Group. Those who have participated in the beta testing of
this policy, leading up to the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice">W3C Current Patent
Practice</a> document, have also made an invaluable contributions
to shaping this document in a manner that will help in achieving
W3C's mission.</p>

<p>Every participant in the Patent Policy Working Group has made
substantial contributions to this document. Since its inception,
the following individuals have participated in the Working
Group:</p>

<p>Jean-François Abramatic (W3C), Chuck Adams (IBM), Angela
Anderson (Nortel), Anders Arvidsson (Nokia), Martin Ashton
(Reuters, Ltd.), Carl Cargill (Sun Microsystems), Wanda Cox (Apple
Computer), W. Mike Deese (Microsoft), Mark DeLuca (Cozen O'Connor
for Microsoft), Don Deutsch (Oracle), Tom Frost (AT&amp;T), Michael
Gelblum (Oracle), Mari Georges (ILOG S.A.), Lisa Goldman (Sun
Microsystems), Eduardo Gutentag (Sun Microsystems), Toon
Groenendaal (Philips Electronics), Michele Herman (Microsoft),
Richard J. Holleman (IBM), Ian Jacobs (W3C), Glen Johnson (Nortel
Networks), Jerry Kellenbenz (Apple Computer), George Kerscher
(Daisy Consortium), Alan Kotok (W3C), Gerry Lane (IBM), Arnaud Le
Hors (IBM), Susan Lesch (W3C, Team Contact), Roger Martin (AOL),
Bede McCall (MITRE), Catherine McCarthy (Sun Microsystems), Lloyd
McIntyre (Xerox), Earl Nied (Intel), Steve Nunn (The Open Group),
Scott K. Peterson (Hewlett-Packard), Tony E. Piotrowski (Philips
Electronics), Gene Potkay (Avaya), Chuck Powers (Motorola), Barry
Rein (Pennie &amp; Edmonds for W3C), Gib Ritenour (Nortel
Networks), Michael Schallop (then Sun Microsystems), Kevin Smith
(Nortel Networks), George Tacticos (IBM), David Turner (Microsoft),
Daniel Weitzner (W3C, Working Group Chair), George Willingmyre (GTW
Associates), Helene Plotka Workman (Apple Computer), Don Wright
(Lexmark), Joe Young (Xerox), and Tom Zell (Xerox). Invited experts
Eben Moglen (Free Software Foundation), Bruce Perens (Software in
the Public Interest), and Larry Rosen (Rosenlaw.com for Open Source
Initiative) participated and contributed fully.</p>

<p>Finally, Susan Lesch was an invaluable staff contact and has
done a masterful job on several occasions to help this inherently
complex document read more easily and clearly.</p>
</body>
</html>