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

Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF

From: Bruce Williams <bwilliams@regenstrief.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:08:59 -0500
Message-ID: <3BB9D88B.119C347F@regenstrief.org>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I would echo Chris Lilley' thoughtful statements
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0060.html)
and add my own recommendations:

1) "Reasonable and non-discriminatory" needs to be better defined in terms of
what "reasonable" constitutes. A very well known software company with
initials MS has a long history of implementing onerous licensing arrangements
that I'm sure it considers "reasonable". There *must* be language defining
"reasonable" licensing fees at the time of the standard's approval or as part
of the PPF and what, if any, changes in the fees may be made in the future.
Without this, any member is free to agree to "reasonable" licensing fees
before the standard's approval and then radically increase the fee once it
controls the intellectual property needed to implement the new standard.

2) If a RAND license is adopted for a standard does that preclude the standard
being offered at no cost to non-profit organizations such as universities?
Institutions of higher learning have long been active driving forces behind
the Web and shouldn't be excluded by onerous licensing terms.

3) What recourse does the W3C have against a subversive Member who initially
agrees to either a RF or RAND license and then later reneges? I suppose this
closely follows the reasoning behind Chris' point 2) with my concern more with
what happens after the standard is approved rather than before.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,



Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 11:09:04 GMT

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