<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 2:15 PM John Hudson <<a href="mailto:john@tiro.ca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">john@tiro.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Dave wrote, in response to Peter:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Right, and my name is on some Google patents for
font UI stuff, which I am fine with for the same reasons. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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? </div>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, from my perspective, having a clear patent policy is the
primary (sole?) virtue of the ISO standardisation of OFF. </p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Not having a single vendor have complete control, even if that control has been exercised with some degree of noblesse oblige, seems also like a primary virtue. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto">I'm curious to hear why people who have been around this ISO group believe the patent policy of ISO meets the needs of the wider community. </div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>