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
>