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

RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:47:36 -0500
Message-ID: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306749EE5@HQ5>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:42 GMT