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


From: Michael Robinson <robinson@netrinsics.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:26:55 +0800
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <E15nvbT-0007TB-00@elephant>
Neither the FAQ nor Backgrounder prepared in conjunction with the PPF 
proposal clearly articulate the specific negative consequences (if any) of
continuing to exclude non-RF technology from W3C Recommendations.

Rather than an explanation of why the inclusion of RAND-licensed technology is
necessary, there is only vague handwaving about "the next decade", "higher-
level services", "the realities of patent and licensing issues".

Historically, the issue of non-RF "standards" has been extremely sensitive
in the Internet community.  The lack of a coherent, detailed, and rational
justification for this break from tradition is a fatal flaw in the proposal.

The PPF proposal should be rejected outright until such time as the PPWG is
able to provide an acceptable and persuasive justification for the inclusion
of RAND-licensed technology in W3C Recommendations, or until procedures for
adoption of RAND-licensed techology are eliminated from the proposal.

	-Michael Robinson
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 01:25:43 UTC

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