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

Patent Policy Draft

From: Jim Farmer <jxf@immagic.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:41:45 -0400
Message-ID: <004301c14b93$6a834cb0$1e03000a@IMMDCA10>
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@W3.org>
There are three major flaws in the Patent Policy. First
"reasonable and non-discriminatory" is the gateway to
extensive litigation. It is a concept that does not have
significant legal precedent and therefore will be open to
extended judicial interpretation. Who would want to
implement a standard where the price will be determined
several years in the future? What small business--the source
of creativity--can afford litigation at this level? The
concept itself is discriminatory because of the cost of

Second, standards are for widespread and general use.
Patented standards, regardless of the price, will be a
disincentive to implement a standard. This will slow and
could prevent the adoption of a standard that would be
beneficial to all if it were widely adopted.

Third, the culture of the Internet and W3C has been sharing.
The same level of cooperation will not be possible if every
presentation, every decision is based on the direct
contribution to income from royalties. If those who
particiapted in the JEDEC  representatives had known their
work was being used by Rambus for a patent application, I am
sure the discussions would have been less productive.

Clearly there are pressures from W3C sponsors to benefit
directly from their contribution. In the long run the
proposed policy would irreversiblly damage the collegial
standards making process. We expected better from W3C.

Or putting it another way, W3C should not accept
responsibility for full employment of lawyers. As Sony's
chairman said, in the U.S. we need more engineers and fewer

jim farmer
instructional media + magic, inc.
202 296-2807
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 18:35:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:44 UTC