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

RAND inclusion

From: Mark Hackett <mark-hackett@lineone.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:03:15 +0100
Message-ID: <000a01c14b6c$84e47380$6400a8c0@arthur>
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
I reckon this to be  abad thing, I'll keep this short so you'll have time to get through it all...

1) "Home grown" algorithms which a particular entity will profit form will be pushed by that entity whether the result is the best or not.

2) Competitors algorithms will be rubbushed as long as possible in order to preclude this revenue stream from them

3) Patent-free ideas will be sidelined by corporate/business interest in order to ensure that more money is flowing (an underground trade of cross-patenting could allow coalitions).

These three items will possibly make the decision and inclusion phase much longer.

A scenario: Sun  gets Java included as a core requirement. What happens with MS? They have court obligations NOT to produce a JVM. What happens next?

For low-budget or no-budget contributors, there will nw be a barrier to entry that did not exist before. Affecting Freeware, shareware non-profit as well as Open Source.

When money is dependednt upon certain standards being ratified, there can easily be claims of partisanship and shady deals. Can the W3C open up enough information to disprove this? I suspect not. Even if the meetings were opened, the details of negotiations will allow early release of potential patented algorithms, causing the loss of value to those ideas.

Lastly, where does it say that a propriatory standard HAS to make money for the inventor? If they do not wish to contribute RF to a standards body, then they do not HAVE to have it included. If the RF version in the standard means that the other idea becomes unmarketable and wirthless, then isn;t that the decision of the users of that technology?


Sorry, I know I'd say I would keep it short, but that's as short as it gets.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 14:04:22 GMT

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