<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">David raises an interesting point.
Perhaps an "approval in principle, subject to resolving IP issues"
is in fact a reasonable approach that could be taken. Something
that documents that no specific technical or other eligibility
problems remain. That might well improve the basis for settling IP
issues.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">As to what one would request from the
rights holder would be something like the standard IP waiver for
standardization: something that allows the SDO to freely develop,
maintain and publish the standard and all users to use the
standard w/o IP encumbrance.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Sometimes, such waivers are limited to
where the rights holders only promise to license the rights for
reasonable terms. That's something appropriate where a standard
relies on patented technology for its implementation. It would not
be appropriate for character standardization.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">That's why you want to have a lawyer or
otherwise skilled person along when making that request. <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/15/2021 6:38 PM, David Starner via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMZ=zj6Q9yztQXQa3NJub4_Koohs0Jp+uOs+Vr7L19m6rjuXRQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 4:24 PM Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is completely resolved.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
No point from whose perspective? Paramount may as well reasonably say
that there is no point in even discussing the IP issues until they can
examine the final product. It seems unlikely that Unicode is going to
bend so far as to produce the text that's going in Chapter 20 about
Klingon, but you're asking a lot of Paramount and KLI to get an IP
agreement without it being clear that it's reasonably certain Unicode
is going for with it. Even at that, what's the IP problem? Nobody is
going to be happy if KLI spends weeks trying to work with Paramount's
lawyers and they solve the IP problem and then Unicode rejects the
solution.
>From my perspective, this demand is tantamount to a rejection. If
Klingon is going to be encoded in Unicode, the Unicode Consortium
should give at least a squishy approval of the script sans IP problems
and clear statement of what the Consortium needs out of Paramount.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>