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

Re: W3C Patent Policy - FOR

From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:59:56 +1000
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3BBCA39E.24057.1EEF8FB@localhost>

For those who cannot view the attached DOC file, here's the contents of the 
first for-vote we received.

=======================

                         "100% For & Not Against!"



The WWW Consortium began its work in the late eighties/early nineties by 
developing HTML code as an alternative to the then forthcoming "Office 
Suites."

The group was formed, mostly of students, who were attempting to get their 
papers done right...but, as the development of their coding progressed, 
things got a bit complicated -- they had to deal with complicated issues, 
such as FONT TYPE and CHARACTER MAPPING...also, COLOR (very, very 
complicated DESIGN ISSUES).

So, some of them gave in to the hype to companies like Adobe, among others 
because they needed resources.

The ones who stuck to their guns are probably the ones who are initiating 
this, now -- it's a good time for it.

The idea behind imposing a nominal fee to view online art both online and 
offline is a reality which should serve to teach the general public that 
the Internet should be strongly self-regulated: we not only need to be able 
to DOWNLOAD "good stuff" from the Internet, but we also need to realize the 
following:

(1.) We have to become educated about Internet use in an academic sense for 
any of it to be worthwhile and paying a nominal fee will help us to put our 
minds in gear for this.

(2.) We need this as an option because it moves us further away from the 
idea of government taxation of the Internet, which may partly or wholly be 
within their goal.


=======================

Plus, here's the rest.

Cheers
Jason


chgo9127@rcnchicago.com wrote:

 
> Hi! I know what the W3C is all about --
> have been keeping informed, since the early nineties.
> 
> Here are some suggestions, with a commentary --
> I would appreciate a list of associates who I might
> communicate with, if I create a browser, or something
> (not on topic, but *serious*); J. Neal, POB 14413 -
> Lincoln Park Station, Chicago IL 60614-0413.
> 
> *There is a different document attached.
> 
> This fee would be quite easy to stomach, if ALL
> Internet Service Providers would be required to make
> a public listing available of all currently active domain
> names purchased through them.
> 
> This list should be available in search format with
> Boolean operators capacity.
> 
> The public will have to pay this fee, anyhow -- why
> not give them something in return for the extra cost,
> even if they have to pay an additional fee, on top of it.
> 
> Possible Pitfalls:=20
> 
> Would downloaded content be usable only at the same
> computer? How will this be prevented, if not? Will a
> user ever pay twice for the same content (ex: multiple
> access accounts)
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 04:00:44 GMT

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