<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Angsana New";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cordia New";
panose-1:2 11 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">It seems to me that there’s a good case study in that TrueType/TTO/OpenType have been with us for about 30 years and that, AFAIK, there have never been any patent suites or demands for licensing royalties throughout that time. (Someone
correct me if I’m overlooking something.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces@lists.aau.at> <b>
On Behalf Of </b>John Hudson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 23, 2020 11:16 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] MATH Encumbrance<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dave wrote, in response to Peter:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Right, and my name is on some Google patents for font UI stuff, which I am fine with for the same reasons. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, from my perspective, having a clear patent policy is the primary (sole?) virtue of the ISO standardisation of OFF.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Dave is right that inclusion in OFF should be a good case study of patents in the format.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>JH<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>John Hudson<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Tiro Typeworks Ltd <a href="https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiro.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca8424765d4e147d5757708d847908cfb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637338033446186844&sdata=B65cPCYiCw9kaAeQ5EKCwmH9kPX9zPgQVV%2BXihlRCjo%3D&reserved=0">www.tiro.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Salish Sea, BC <a href="mailto:tiro@tiro.com">tiro@tiro.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>NOTE: In the interests of productivity, I am currently <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>dealing with email on only two days per week, usually <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Monday and Thursday unless this schedule is disrupted <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>by travel. If you need to contact me urgently, please <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>use some other method of communication. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</body>
</html>