[MPEG-OTSPEC] MATH Encumbrance

[Dave Crossland]

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:02 AM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com> wrote:

> It’s best not to bring up specific patents in cross-company discussions
> since some companies have policies requiring employees to exit discussions
> if other parties mention any specifics regarding patents. (Triple indemnity
> being a bit scary and all.)
>
There are a lot of new people here, like myself, who have no idea about
this kind of "unwritten rule," so I'm very grateful for your shedding light
on this.

Does "exit discussions" mean not posting on this thread, or this mailing
list?

I will say that I was a party in some patents in my time at MS that were
> filed solely for defensive purposes, never with any intent to charge
> licensing fees.
>
Right, and my name is on some Google patents for font UI stuff, which I am
fine with for the same reasons.

But isn't the point of a formal standards body to get that intent turned
into something in writing? And is that what OFF means? Or isn't it?

Since the MATH table is in OFF, this seemed like a good case study for
informing the future of 32 bit GIDs and so on that Li Renzhi just mentioned.

But I'm happy to talk, without a specific existing case study, about
hypotheticals.


 In the font space, I’d suggest that licensing fees could result in
> diverging formats and renewed font wars, which nobody wants. It’s not like
> video formats or something that takes rocket science to eke out the next
> leap in performance. Nobody significantly benefits if fonts don’t just work
> everywhere.
>
I certainly don't want renewed Font Wars, and that's why I'm raising this
topic.

In order to prevent it, I want to see a clear path forwards for fixing
long-standing problems with OFF within the OFF development process...

And I want to confirm that the OFF process does actually guarantee "just
works everywhere," because it ensures patents don't require licensing as
written policy.



>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2020 8:09 PM
> *To:* Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>
> *Cc:* mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
> *Subject:* Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] MATH Encumbrance
>
>
>
> Is that because of a MPEG OFF patent policy applying to
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US7492366
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatents.google.com%2Fpatent%2FUS7492366&data=02%7C01%7C%7C53c05d63fab6437ad0f208d84648bf3b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637336625538947643&sdata=wk5EfhxAX6gD%2B3hDij9qdiT2Utl%2F%2BzcYDqqwvgScpzU%3D&reserved=0>
> that means a license isn't required?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 9:29 PM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com> wrote:
>
> I’m not aware of any such requirement.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> *On Behalf Of *Dave
> Crossland
> *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2020 5:51 PM
> *To:* mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
> *Subject:* [MPEG-OTSPEC] MATH Encumbrance
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Does MATH table implementation require a license?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200822/77fe100a/attachment-0001.html>