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

keep standards open

From: der.hans <Gemeinnutz@LuftHans.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:12:02 -0700 (MST)
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0110010002330.544-100000@spliff.LuftHans.com>
moin, moin,

just today became aware of the pending patent policy proposal.

Please do not consider using non-RF technology in W3C standards.

In reference to section 2.1.

1. - the tradition of patenting and holding those patents hostage will only
carry over to the Web is it has support from organizations such as the
W3C. The W3C is in a position to prevent patents from coming into play in
protocol standards.

2. - the rise in patent issuance had attributed more to the noise of
unworthy claims rather than actual innovation.

3. - problems with licensing of patents is an example of why the W3C
should refuse to include any patents that aren't available royalty-free in
standards it endorses.

4. - "popular" patents, especially the Amazon patent, are examples of how
patents are standing in the way of innovation and standardization.

In section 2.2 it is written that market dynamics have been the cause for
rapid development and "worldwide proliferation of standards". It is then
stated that that view shows that the license models of other industries
isn't appropriate to the Web infrastructure. I feel it is the openness of
the standards that has led to the innovation. If it hadn't been for the
openness of the http and html standards we wouldn't have had mosaic or
lynx. We wouldn't have had Netscape, which finally forced Microsoft to
include the capability to connect to the Internet.

The Net would've still grown due to third party addons such as the winsock
applications that were available and services such as the ISPs provided.
These third party applications, however, hadn't been able to do what the
open standards accomplished, namely build up critical mass to make the Net a
household experience.

The W3C can only work to keep their standards from being hijacked if they
control them and don't have to ask a patent holder if they're still allowed
to continue using the patented technology.

ogg is a good example. Because they aren't held hostage by a patent holder
the format can continue improving. It allows innovation because they don't
have to ask Frauenhofer's ( e.g. the patent holder for mp3, the competing
standard ) permission to make changes. The standards body is permitted to
make the necessary changes, in other words fulfill its role.

While I agree that RF availability of protocols is more important at lower
level, that doesn't mean it's not also necessary at the higher application
layer levels. There is also nothing that prevents a higher level protocol
from being a lower level protocol for something else. Once the protocol is
given credibility it is difficult to take that credibility back. Also, once
the W3C has lost credibility by sponsoring tainted "standards" it will be
difficult for it to gain back its credibility.

In all the classes I've taught and the pages I've done, I've always said
that the W3C standard was the measure as to whether html was proper. It has
played an important role in the development of the Web and the Internet as
a whole. It has also played an important role in the growth of computing
in general. Please see that the W3C continues to play an important role by
refusing to incorporate non-RF technology into standards it works on and
endorses.

danke,

der.hans
-- 
# der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com
#  You can't handle the source! - der.hans
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 03:04:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:40 GMT