- From: Pete Black <pete.black@metering.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:33:56 +1200
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
As requested, i am writing to clarify the principal reason why i object to the RAND patented-standards proposal. The issue is clear. By allowing patented technologies into standards, without an unequivocal and unlimited free license to accompany use of these patented technologies, free software/open source developers like myself are effectively locked out of using that standard. There is no such thing as 'Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory' licensing, because that is an oxymoron. If i don't have $5000 to license a standard, i cannot employ that standard in my work. This is no problem for big companies like Apple, Microsoft and HP, who can simply not pay and tie the issue up in court for years if they like. Or they can pay and it won't even make a dent in the bottom line. Neither of these things are possible for the independent or open-source developer, so how is this either reasonable or non-discriminatory? The 'World Wide Web' is precisely that, and by the looks of things it is only a few large U.S comapnies who are trying to dictate the future of web standards. At the very least, this raises large issues with respect to international issues. i.e. Software patents are not legal in many countries. Does this mean that developers in China can employ your standards royalty-free, but developers in the U.S cannot? How is this Non-Discriminatory? By adopting fee-based licensing for W3C standards, you are locking people out from contributing to the construction of the world wide web. Open-Source developers cannot use fee-based standards, since their software does not generate revenue, nor is it licensed on an individual basis, and it is licensed to encourage third parties to modify and distribute it, often without the original authors knowledge. You are locking people out from viewing the world wide web. People who are too poor to afford the latest copy of Windows XS with it's browser capable of viewing these fee-based content types will be locked out of viewing that content. There will be no alternative, since Free programs will legally prevented from supporting these standards. This is, to me, perfectly acceptable for proprietary standards, but in no way is it appropriate for the W3C to endorse such practices. You are driving the world wide web into the hands of the few companies with the biggest legal teams, deepest pockets and strongest drive to stamp out any competition. In summary, i specifically reject the notion that any fee-based licensing for W3C standards is either Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory, and ask that if the W3C resolve to include patented technologies, they ensure that such technologies are licensed royalty-free and non-exclusively. Thanks for listening -Pete -- Pete Black Systems Administrator Total Metering Ltd/Elect Data Services pete.black@metering.co.nz
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 18:29:19 UTC