- From: Keith MacLeod <keith@multipage.ca>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:38:59 -0400
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
I must argue strongly against allowing patent-encumbered technology to be incorporated into W3C recommendations/specifications on anything other than a royalty-free basis. Whereas outwardly the requirement for "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees has a nice ring to it, the enforcement of such guidelines and the possible remedies for those who feel that they are being treated in an "unreasonable" or "discriminatory" fashion will undoubtedly prove to be prohibitively costly for developers working on a small (or nonexistent) budget. Is it "reasonable" for a developer who intends to make no profit from his work to believe that a zero-dollar royalty fee is "non-discriminatory" for him? in the mind of the developer, this would seem to make sense. In the boardroom of the owners of the patent, I'm certain another opinion will prevail. Where will the financial resources come from for the developer to argue his point? The W3C's stated goals themselves would seem to clearly rule out the possibility of considering such a measure ('Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, education, ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on all continents',) since once an implementor must consider royalty fees as a necessary part of development costs, the impetus for developing compliant products must inevitably be determined by the potential financial returns on the product itself. This will stifle academic implementations, open implementations, implementations for marginalized markets (e.g. the blind,) implementations for disenfranchised markets (e.g. the poor,) and clearly put the future of the web into the hands of large corporate players who historically have proven to be unwilling to devote their time and expertise to developing for low-return marketplaces. The rationalization for this move itself seems somewhat specious. The inclusion of a provision allowing working groups to reconsider their liscensing models post-facto cannot but make one wonder if there is not already a pantent holder for one or more of the various technologies that make up the W3C's recommendations, hoping to push this through and make a cash-grab. There is no clear and pressing need to incorporate patented technology into the core recommendations of the W3C, since numerous proprietary technologies are already being used alongside the open ones which make up the web, without the necessity for incorporating them into the W3C's recommendations. In short, the net effect of allowing patent holders to demand royalties of implementors of web-related products will ultimately be the stifling of development outside the corporate envelope. The requirement for "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees would seem to be insufficient to prevent this, even without the inherent vagueness of the phrase itself. Thank you for considering my opinion, Keith MacLeod Manager, Information Technologies, MultiPage, Inc. (the views expressed herein are those of the author, and do not represent the policies of MultiPage, Inc.)
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 13:35:09 UTC