<trackbot> Date: 01 October 2013

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Sep/0004.html Agenda

Bryan: Push API is a description of how a browser requests a service, it doesn't describe the operation of the service

Targeted application addressing

https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki/Claims_Analysis

scribe: '909 patent, notion of "addressing"
... addressing in header, one of the elements of WAP push, targeting applications asynchronously
... that feature was removed from the API to simplify API surface
... so that no longer reads on the current API
... spec doesn't say how a particular message is routed to a particular application

Wendy: if the API doesn't specify addressing, then we don't have all the elements of that patent claim

Bryan: goal would be to have the addressing feature specified, to avoid interop problems
... we may have over-simplified the API

Larry: when one specifies "means" in a patent, one would expect to find in the specification specific means for accomplishing the function

Bryan: they mention short messages with address fields
... sms have envelope and data field
... targeting devices + ports is fundamental part of the way SMS works on GSM

Larry: this has been around for a long time. To understand how they'd narrowed the claim, I'd have to look at the file wrapper.

Bryan: current API is like a light-switch, simple notification that "I'm ready to receive push notifications"

I'd like W3C (or maybe PSIG) to consider the notion that a system is patentable, whether every API that provides access to the system infringes the patent

OMA has FRAND licensing for these elements in the platform

scribe: asking for separate licensing on the API seems like double-dipping

vs protocols and formats, developed at W3C, we're talking here about APIs to systems/applications developed elsewhere

Question: is there a difference in the way PAGs should operate between patent asserted to apply to protocol or format developed at W3C, and to apply to a system or application developed elsewhere for which W3C is developing an API.

Nokia issued these claims in WAP forum days; listed and licensed on OMA website

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: wseltzer
Inferring Scribes: wseltzer

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Wendy, Larry_Rosen, Bryan_Sullivan
Present: Wendy Larry_Rosen Bryan_Sullivan
Regrets: Yves DKA

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 01 Oct 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/01-papag-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report