- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:47:36 -0500
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>
- Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Let me try this in very plain language: -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >> Mine is the objectivist position with respect >> to that politic. >I still have no idea what you are saying. You are gelding the W3C; for the non-doctors, cutting off their nuts. With a RAND policy, the patent owner has to publicly refuse to offer reasonable and non-discrimanatory terms. With only RF, they simply refuse and will not be publicly held up in a bad light as they are the IP owner. With RAND, you have a chance to get reasonable and non-discrimanatory terms in those cases in which use of the IP is highly desirable. Without it, you are completely and wholely subject to the owner's good will. You have in effect, given the WWW to the BigCos. Business: "if it is legal, we'll do it." Public Interest: "if it is legal, we'll do it." No difference. If you want there to be a difference, you must ensure both points of view can be accomodated. In the majority of cases, RF is to be preferred. This is unquestionably the case. There can be cases in which this is not true and in these cases, very high value technology, the chance to get RAND by formal policy is preferred. If you remove that option by requiring RF-only, you weaken the authority you say you respect. Preserve control of your options and then know when to exercise them. len
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 15:47:41 UTC