RAND licencing will re-define meaning of "standard"

There has been few cases in the history where some persons in standard
organisations have patented
proposed technology during development of standard. It has caused problems and
usually standard has
been delayed and public responce to the resulting "standard" has caused plenty of
written text, delayed
projects etc. I do not like to see happen in internet and communication
technology.

I can see same problem if previously "standard" proposals of  W3C and it is very
much against  policy
in international and national standards. I personally work in at the industry
where products are very much
based on international standard, which covers safety and basic features of
product. We have to fullfill
all those to be on market. But we have never had problems that it is needed to pay
royalties to follow standard.
This is very fundamental question, It is standard if you have to pay to follow it?

For me RAND means that W3C is not standard any more, it is more or less
organisation which collects money
from used patents. Past 15..20 years of internet and TCP/IP has shown that free
technology (ISO/OSI had problems
with licensing and even distribution of the standard was problem) makes best
products in minimum time.

If W3C includes RAND as a part of license, there should be something which makes
sure that patented technology
is available free of charge for public use to be sure that communication between
public institutions/goverments to the
end users is not limited to the specific tool vendors or products. This is
specially problem in 3rd party countries where
communication tools/channels should be virtually 'free' and new tools/technologies
will develop to the direction where
teaching and education is very much based on communication and network
infrastructure.

Best regards,

-- Risto

Has been working with embedded  Software/Hw designs teams  for past 15 yers

Risto.Jokinen@iki.fi

Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 06:58:14 UTC