W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > October 2001

Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest

From: Matt Kennedy <matt@jumpline.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 00:22:19 -0400
Message-ID: <3BB7EF7B.7030008@jumpline.com>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I have to agree with the sentiment that an extension of the comment 
deadline is necessary. The RAND proposal has quietly moved along and the 
public and development community at large is just now learning of it. 
Given the large amount of negative commentary appearing in this forum in 
the last day or so, it would seem that many people concerned with web 
standards are as taken aback as I am with this turn of events.

Given the headaches that have emerged in the last few years from patent 
conflicts in regards to web standards, de facto and otherwise (GIFs, 
MP3, and Hyperlinks come quickly to mind), any change from the RF policy 
of the W3 has the potential to do more harm than good. As such, any 
change must be done with care. Thorough discussion and community 
involvement is necessary. An extension of the discussion deadline is 
essential to this taking place, in order to get past the knee-jerk, 
negative reaction to this proposal and allow for well thought and 
constructive critique to take place with public involvement of the web 

A well defined patent policy framework is a worthwhile endeavor, but the 
current working draft needs more review and discussion by a wider 
audience. Many good points are made in this draft, particularly the 
points identified in section 2. However, I find little here that will 
help the promotion of web standards and mitigate the negative impact 
that patents can potentially have on those standards. In particular, the 
role of 'Good Faith Disclosure' defined in section 7.2 is a bit 
disconcerting as the lack of such good faith has often been at the root 
of patent problems in the past.

In summary, I believe the proposal as it stands now, has the potential 
to have a severe negative impact on point 4 of the 'W3 in 7 points':

    W3C, a vendor-neutral organization, promotes interoperability by 
    and promoting open (non-proprietary) computer languages and protocols
    that avoid the market fragmentation of the past. This is achieved 
    industry consensus and encouraging an open forum**** for discussion.

Please keep this forum open for discussion.

Matt Kennedy
Jumpline.com, Inc.
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 00:15:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:43 UTC