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

W3C Patent Policy

From: Peter Goode <peter.goode@mrexcessive.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 14:05:11 +0500
Message-ID: <3BBEC947.99C65EBC@mrexcessive.net>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Dear Patent Policy Working Group,
cc. Tim BL


I was surprised and rather disgusted to read that W3C are considering
endorsing the RAND model for Royalty Licensing.


IMHO, any or all standards which are not Open and Free (in the FSF/GNU
sense, rather than the financial sense) should be excised from the web
and positively discriminated against.


I would appreciate confirmation that your committee will be rejecting
any attempts by commercial interests to section and privatise, to any
degree, common standards.  Obviously commercial companies and
individuals can develop 'private' or 'closed' standards, even extending
existing open standards... but these must NEVER be adopted by W3C or
even documented and endorsed by the W3C websites..

It is vital that W3C remains distinct and above grabbing commercial
interests.  Ideally only non-profit organisations and individuals should
be allowed to be members, I'll admit that may be tricky in the
short-term, but it is an essential step forward which must come
eventually.  Or the internet/web/whatever-next will separate into
haves/havenots of technological tools and, heaven forbid, licensed
transport or routing protocols.


I think it is important that W3C. Patent Policy working group roundly
rejects ANY AND ALL attempts to allow ANY patented technologies into the
W3 collection of acceptable technologies.

It can be argued that you should campaign actively against Patents of
any kind and in favour of other forms of intellectual property
management. Particularly as the web/internet/next-thing present mankind
with a platform which can be used to remove the many disturbing
inbalances in this world.  (e.g. average income in US $36,000 in 2000,
average income in Afghanisatn $80 - source CIA world factbook)


Don't fall into the mistake of thinking that IP should be treated as a
marketable asset.  It should be given away always for free, because the
cost of reproduction is zero.   Charge for services, products and
manufacturing by all means, but not for knowledge and learning... only
the truly evil would try to prevent a poor country from acquiring the
means to save themselves from a dangerous plague or famine or war.



Please let me know the result of your debates and votes, or let me know
where I can find them.


Thanks for your time.

Be good.


peter
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 10:06:50 GMT

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