[MPEG-OTSPEC] MATH Encumbrance

[John Hudson]

Dave wrote, in response to Peter:
>
>     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?

Indeed, from my perspective, having a clear patent policy is the primary 
(sole?) virtue of the ISO standardisation of OFF.

The MS math layout patents are yet another case of lack of explicit 
statement creating potential uncertainty. We can accept the likelihood 
that the patents were registered for defensive purposes, and that 
Microsoft would not seek licensing fees or restrict use based on those 
or other patents related to fonts, but likelihood and goodwill are not 
certainty.

Dave is right that inclusion in OFF should be a good case study of 
patents in the format.

JH

-- 

John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks Ltd    www.tiro.com
Salish Sea, BC        tiro at tiro.com

NOTE: In the interests of productivity, I am currently
dealing with email on only two days per week, usually
Monday and Thursday unless this schedule is disrupted
by travel. If you need to contact me urgently, please
use some other method of communication. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200823/aaaa081a/attachment.html>