RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]

If that was forwarded, also this:  in the main, I agree 
with the direction and reasons for the WG that is taking 
this course.  Unless patents, patent pools, and other 
means of recouping costs of research are available, the 
W3C and its membership will not have first class 
technology made available.   If however, the W3C 
chooses to pursue standard making as an activity, 
then it must be better informed about the timing of 
standards with respect to fielding.  Standards are not 
experimental, let a thousand flowers bloom, documents. 
They must be closer to the actual practices and 
contract requirements of the technical vendors as 
regards release timing.  Constant churning in tools 
and requirements drive costs too high to sustain.

Len Bullard

-----Original Message-----
From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:30 PM
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Cc: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: Fw: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]


I'm taking the liberty of forwarding Len's comment.

I don't agree with the parenthetical comment in (2);
public domain ideas can't be stolen, though they can
be usurped (e.g. by ab/use of the USPTO process)
in ways that the W3C hasn't so far wanted to support.

Point (3) corresponds to one in my response, about the
toothlessness of the "good faith" standard needing to
be addressed if this moves forward.

Re (4) it's a good point that W3C should not be talking
about "standards", but about "recommendations".  Re
the strategic consequence, I'll say that's nothing new
for W3C or any other similar technology organization.

- Dave


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]


> Ok, having read it:
> 
> 1.  It significantly raises the bar for creating and administering a WG.
> Only the very experienced and knowledgeable should take the Chair of a 
> W3C WG, and by that, I mean non-technical savvy.  You will need to be 
> someone of Charles Goldfarb's rank to do this work.
> 
> 2.  It clearly exposes the risks of working in organizations and groups 
> without patent disclosure agreements.  That danger has been there all 
> along (theft is the WebWay with respect to ideas and notions).
> 
> 3.  It isn't very strong with regards to disclosure in that sending a 
> person without prior knowledge to the WG appears to be sufficient to 
> protect the owner from disclosure.  If so, this is a very weak policy 
> and will exploited to the maximum.
> 
> 4.  The presence of the word "standards" all over this document 
> reveals both intent and the outcome.  By claiming to be a standards 
> organization, the W3C has overstepped its charter and made its 
> capture a primary business goal.  Effectively at this point, 
> it quits being a means to innovate and is now a means to define 
> market.  Whereas before, one only had to participate to be 
> informed, capture of the WG Chair assumes strategic importance.
> 
> I'd say this puts the brakes onto any development that pretends to 
> be moving in Internet Time as that network effect depends a great 
> deal on near-real time involvement of large numbers of developers 
> and timely feedback and adoption.
> 
> This may prove to be a stabilizing force.  The fences have 
> come to the range.
> 
> len
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 09:00:40 UTC