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

Fwd: Patent Policy Comment

From: <TRUassayist1@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:48:59 EDT
Message-ID: <16.1336225e.28ec552b@aol.com>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
CC: TRUassayist1@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/2001 6:11:19 PM Central Daylight Time, 
TRUassayist@netscape.net writes:


> Subj:Patent Policy Comment
> Date:10/1/2001 6:11:19 PM Central Daylight Time
> From:    TRUassayist@netscape.net (Steven Wallace)
> To:    www-patentpolicy-comments@w3.org, TRUassayist1@aol.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affiliation of those that have been instrumental in furthering the
> acceptance of standards that knowingly have a vested interested in
> intellectual property that will be involved in the standard is already
> being seriously looked at as a conflict of interest.
> 
> Statements must be made that are attached to proposals for the patent
> policy changes being adopted identifying those persons advancing the
> change in policy that will directly benefit from the changes.
> 
> Such statements are a flag that allow other parties that have been under
> the assumption that technical standards are being worked that are not
> limiting in their use as a standard are in fact self serving to some of
> the writers of the standards.
> 
> The integrity of the process comes into question when corporate
> representatives are advancing a change in the W3C policy of free of
> royalities when adopting patented standards.  Many would prefer
> standards that are worked in such a way as to preserve the openness of
> the web to all nations and all companies across the world.  The web is
> international and by adopting the intellectual property rights of the
> United States in software patents, those nations having billions of
> persons and by choice the desire to as a national policy not tax web
> developed standards with royalties are at odds with the W3C.  
> 
> Does the W3C seek to be a policeman of India, China, Indonesia, the
> nations of the African continent that are developing their people's
> education through the use of the internet when they use the software and
> do not pay the royalties?  Is the W3C so narrow in their outlook of the
> world that they would be the gate keeper preventing the intellectually
> deprived in poor nations from having access the the technology of
> communication that is the world wide web?  I think not, but have been
> wrong about so many actions of government recently that even now the
> basic sense of right and wrong on really fundamental issues seems to be
> lost.  The world, mankind, needs to have a world wide web open to rich
> and poor, Christian and Muslim, capitalist and socialist, and putting
> property rights on the web is an attack on free speech that allows some
> to limit all mankind from communicating freely.  The results are all
> over the headlines of such limitations on communication.  Does the W3C
> not see that the organization has responsibility to advance
> communication not limit it?
> 
> Sincerely
> 
> Steven Wallace
> 




attached mail follows:


Affiliation of those that have been instrumental in furthering the
acceptance of standards that knowingly have a vested interested in
intellectual property that will be involved in the standard is already
being seriously looked at as a conflict of interest.

Statements must be made that are attached to proposals for the patent
policy changes being adopted identifying those persons advancing the
change in policy that will directly benefit from the changes.

Such statements are a flag that allow other parties that have been under
the assumption that technical standards are being worked that are not
limiting in their use as a standard are in fact self serving to some of
the writers of the standards.

The integrity of the process comes into question when corporate
representatives are advancing a change in the W3C policy of free of
royalities when adopting patented standards.  Many would prefer
standards that are worked in such a way as to preserve the openness of
the web to all nations and all companies across the world.  The web is
international and by adopting the intellectual property rights of the
United States in software patents, those nations having billions of
persons and by choice the desire to as a national policy not tax web
developed standards with royalties are at odds with the W3C.  

Does the W3C seek to be a policeman of India, China, Indonesia, the
nations of the African continent that are developing their people's
education through the use of the internet when they use the software and
do not pay the royalties?  Is the W3C so narrow in their outlook of the
world that they would be the gate keeper preventing the intellectually
deprived in poor nations from having access the the technology of
communication that is the world wide web?  I think not, but have been
wrong about so many actions of government recently that even now the
basic sense of right and wrong on really fundamental issues seems to be
lost.  The world, mankind, needs to have a world wide web open to rich
and poor, Christian and Muslim, capitalist and socialist, and putting
property rights on the web is an attack on free speech that allows some
to limit all mankind from communicating freely.  The results are all
over the headlines of such limitations on communication.  Does the W3C
not see that the organization has responsibility to advance
communication not limit it?

Sincerely

Steven Wallace
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 07:49:25 GMT

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