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

Re: The Burden of Proof

From: Joergen Ramskov <joergen@ramskov.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:53:00 +0200
Message-ID: <008e01c14b28$33808400$67ffa8c0@itoptima.local>
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
> With this, I believe we have assumed the burden of answering the
question of
> the wisdom of RAND or RF for each activity that we start. The question
will
> be asked an answered again by the entire development community when
they go
> to implement a specification created in either a RAND or RF group (I
expect
> that many will refuse to implement specs they believe to be chartered
in the
> wrong mode) and each time a Working Group published a public working
draft
> (every 3 months) for public comment. W3C certainly may make the wrong
> decision in some cases, but I'm confident that we'll heard about it
and hope
> that we'll learn lessons about how to make these choices.

I certainly hope you learn a lesson from all the responses you've got in
the last few days!

To create a recommendation that is not RF is a wrong decision - why
create a policy that makes it possible to make wrong decisions? The
companies most likely to benefit from the RAND is the huge
coorporations. W3C doesn't exist to make it possible for a few of it's
members to make a bunch of money on their patents, is it?
That this proprosed policy has been created shows that there is
something seriously wrong in the way W3C works.

You write that people have just expected that the W3C recommendations
were RF, but that W3C doesn't have a license policy. Please listen to
the people using your standards and create a policy that is acceptable.
If you don't, I believe there is a high risk of rendering the W3C
obsolete.

To gain acceptance, webstandards has to be RF, if not, "the people" will
simply not use them but instead create open RF standards.

The public image of W3C has been seriously harmed by this and you will
have a hard time building up that image again.

>  Some of the goals of the proposed policy are to ensure that:
> 1. The Web community is not surprised by "submarine" patents whereby
unsuspecting participants are forced to pay license fees
> after their participation in the creation of a Recommendation that
they thought was unencumbered.
> 2. Future work is not hindered because of Fear, Uncertainty, and
Doubt. The proposed policy is designed to promote better
> decisions through disclosure of information. The expectation is that
information will allow a Working Group to proceed as is, to
> work around a perceived patent obstacle, or to abandon work entirely
if perceived to be too encumbered by patents.

To hinder that, make a policy that forces the members of W3C to disclose
any information about patents that may infringe on a recommendation and
to make the patents available RF. If a member doesn't wan't to make a
claimed patent RF, then the recommendation should either not be created
or work around that patent to make sure that royalties can't be demanded
at a later date.

If not, I honestly believe the W3C can consider itself obsolete.

--
Joergen Ramskov - Folding for the Cause!
http://www.teameggroll.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 05:54:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:41 GMT