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


From: John Lewis <john.lewis@grantgeo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:21:06 -0500
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c14a95$12d5f980$ad33cfd8@johngrant>

John Lewis
Director of Information Systems
Grant Geophysical Corp.
16850 Park Row
Houston, TX 77084
voice 281 848 6846

I realize that the public comment period for this issue has expired.  I
also hope you realize that said comment period was unduly short, and
should have been extended in the wake of the September 11, 2001

I am opposed to this change to W3C practice.   Sanctioning RAND
licensing in W3C standards will have the effect of creating disharmony
between vendors who struggle to get their intellectual property into w3c
specs and generally degrading the interoperability of the internet.

Alan Cox stated the position I would take better than I can.  I quote:

"The W3C was created to lead the Web to its full potential by developing
 common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its

A lofty and great goal. A pity that the W3C now proposes to throw away
very reason for existence. 

And now we have a new much abused patent politics buzzword



I think the W3C should ask itself how allowing parties to use patents to
prevent community projects for blind access is "non-discriminatory".

Tim Berners Lee created an innovative environment about sharing and
referencing data. You plan to give large companies the power to stifle
that innovation.

It says something for the sad state of W3C that the proposal in question
has been allowed to progress, carefully arranged not to be visible to
the outside world. The dates of the short consultation period do not
appear to have been adjusted in the light of September 11th. The
shortening of the consultation period also appears to violate the W3C 
rules, but then I am sure you don't care. I can smell the rot from here.

A patent-encumbered web threatens the very freedom of intellectual
allowing only large companies and big media houses to present
in certain ways. Imagine where the web would be now if only large
were able to use image files.

And large companies it is. I note the distinct lack of small companies
the proposal in question. Within the ISO where the same things happen
money simply moves in circles between big players. Accountants and
pay $100,000 sums back and forth as part of an accounting game that they
use to keep out smaller players.

I think we can also be sure that the kind of W3C members working this
little agenda have plans. I would bet on "Windows digitally-protected 
uncopyable web pages" being one of them. Of course the protection they
really mean is "against reading by non IE users".

The W3C must ask itself whether it plans to continue the vision of Tim
become another ITU, a bloated dinosaur that exists more as a corporate
Nations of communication than a standards body. 

If the W3C wishes to remain relevant to the people, to the small
(the other 80%) and to the future of the web then I strongly suggest
that it

o	Requires non-disclosed patents are freely licensed for use
	in that standard for all. 

Without this a key infrastructure standard may suddenely be "owned" by a
member who intentionally kept quiet to gain "non discriminatory" - but
large -
license fees. The current wording encourages patent abuse. Licensing on
RAND basis would only be appropriate for such a non-disclosed patent if
existing RAND licenses were on that proposal before final consultantion.
Regardless of the rest of the outcome all honest members will benefit
such a stricter policy on non-disclosure of patents.

o	Does not "approve" or "recommend" or allow its logo to be used
	on any patent-encumbered item.

To do so will tarnish the value and reputation of the W3C name and logo.
will also create confusion about what W3C standards indicate. 

o	Restricts its activities on patent-encumbered projects to
providing a 
	forum where such people	can work on patent encumbered projects
to be 
	released under their own names only. 

Here its activities would be in a consultative role, helping to guide
bodies in areas of overall standards compliance and interpretation of
goals. It is possible to further the web standardisation goal without
becoming part of those activities that are contrary to the original
of the W3C.

This would mean SVG became a multi-vendor consortium pushing a private
specification. But let's face it - with the patents involved - that is 
precisely what it is. It may even be appropriate for SVG work to be 
transferred to the ITU.

Finally we should all remember this. When patented W3C standards ensure
there is only one web browser in the world, its owners will no longer
have time for the W3C or standards.

Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 12:21:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:44 UTC