<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Mark,</p>
<p>By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using
their communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a
StarTrek fan convention, but rather the implementing companies who
put piQaD keyboards and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody
wakes up at Paramount and wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or
Samsung, or ...) have a license from us for that Klingon stuff
they just put on their phones, those are far juicier targets for
an IP infringement lawsuit, *even if* the likeliest outcome would
not be a decisive win in a court case, but rather just some out of
court settlement. Even an out of court settlement in some case
like this would set a terrible precedent, encouraging other people
claiming IP rights on some writing system being considered for
encoding in the Unicode Standard.</p>
<p>--Ken<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/16/2021 6:17 PM, Mark E. Shoulson
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com">
<p>Now, Peter Constable writes:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">The main concern is that _<i>users</i>_ of
The Unicode Standard won’t be susceptible to IP claims against
them. Since this is uncertain, the onus is on the advocates for
encoding the script to resolve that.</blockquote>
<p>which is an angle I actually had not heard before. And here
I'm really puzzled. The users of the script are already using
the script, whether Unicode encodes it or not. So why is
Unicode suddenly concerned on their behalf? This one is really
kind of strange. Could Unicode be legally responsible for
people "illegally" using the script? It's hardly in Unicode's
power to stop them, as evidence by the fact that usage exists.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>