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

Draft proposal allowing Patents in W3C standards

From: Josh Fryman <fryman@cc.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:45:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3BC1BC1D.410C356E@cc.gatech.edu>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
CC: fryman@cc.gatech.edu

To whom it may concern:

As a PhD student in Computing at Georgia Tech, your proposed patent 
gives me great concern for the future it strives to bring about.  The 
WWW was created as a natural extension to the existing network 
systems of the late 1980's to be an open and flowing mechanism to 
exchange information, ideas, and general communication. As someone 
who was active with the Internet long before the WWW came into 
existance, I feel I can accurately state that the concept of allowing 
patented technology that requires royalties into violates the very 
fundamental reasons the Internet was created.

It is not wrong to allow patented technology except when allowing 
patented technology forces the users of the WWW environment into 
limited choices.  Those companies willing to license their patents 
freely to anyone who wishes to implement the technology, asking only 
inconsequential restrictions [1], should be allowed.  But patent 
holders who demand closed implementations on limited platform choices 
have no part in any standard governing WWW behavior and development.

Perhaps more dangerous to your own organization and others, the rise 
of the WWW can be seen mirrored to an extent in the rise of P2P 
sharing systems such as Gnutella based systems.  If your own standards 
provide a gateway for corporate entities to control the content and 
mechanisms of the WWW, your future will soon be found irrelevant by 
those same corporate entities.  While this is transpiring, the 
community that endorses the original intent of Tim Berners Lee would 
develop an alternate model for systems similar to the WWW design, and 
the large support of the open source communities would remove your 
organization from any decision making path.

I strongly urge you to throw this proposal into the trash, and ignore 
the demands of the corporate entities trying to push it through the 
W3C.  Failure to do so will only wind up with your throwing your own 
organization into the trash.


Josh Fryman

[1] Inconsequential restrictions would be mandatory notices displayed 
indicating the patented technology was in use, including but not 
limited to patent holder contact information, logos, etc.  It does not 
include any attempt to restrict the dynamic space of implementations,
open source models, or any attempts to force revenue collection under
any conditions.
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 10:46:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:44 UTC