- From: <darrylb@iprimus.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:29:35 +1000
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I am writing to record my strong opposition to the incorporation of patented technology within web standards. Many of my reasons for this opposition have been included in other submissions from free software advocates, and I do not propose to repeat all of them here or make an in depth submission. My major concern is the effect that the incorporation of such technologies would inevitably have on "free" software which has to date served the web so well. The very nature of "free" software makes payment of royalties all but impossible in respect of most projects, and is irreconciliable with most of the free software licences, for instance the GPL. I would point out that I am not myself against protection of intellectual property nor am I anti-Microsoft. I believe that there is a place for both free and proprietory software. However, I do not believe that the place for proprietory technology is within standards, thereby forcing all complying products to make use of and pay for the use of that technology. If a proprietory technology is good enough, I submit that it would likely succeed on the web irrespective of standards. For example, products such as "Real Player", "Flash" and "Acrobat" flourish now, apparently without being incorporated into web standards. Adoption of this policy will result in the inability of "free" software products to fully comply with standards, and De Facto will force all users wishing full functionality to use proprietory products which include in the price an appropriate component for Royalties, irrespective of whether the end user requires some or all of the particular functionality concerned.. Standards bodies such as your own may also find themselves in the position of choosing from competing proprietory technologies in a situation where success for one results in a huge competitive advantage. Continuing the present policy may result in some areas remaining ungoverned by standards, but this would seem to be a small price to pay. Excellent proprietory technologies for which there is a demand will, I expect, continue to flourish on the Web. Users will be forced to either pay for the functionality if they wish to utilise it or will have it provided free of charge by proprietors who see an advantage in so doing. In other words, a continuation of the present status quo. I would also point out that some "free" software advocates have already brought up the possiblity of the existence of two webs and an alternate standards body in the event that the proposal proceeds. This is a situation which I would hate to see develop and which I do not believe would be in the best interests of the end users. I sympathise with your position in relation to the problems which have arisen and there certainly is a need to identify potential problems with Patents. However, I do not believe that the incorporation of proprietary technology into standards is justified or desirable. regards, Darryl Barlow Darryl Barlow (darryl@jacovou.com.au) Jacovou Barlow & Associates Level 3, 34 MacMahon Street Hurstville NSW 2220 P.O. Box 416, Hurstville B.C. 1481 Telephone: 61 2 9580 6111 Facsimile 61 2 9580 7711
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 03:31:28 UTC