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

Clear Consequences

From: Matthew C. Tedder <matthew@tedder.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:54:28 -0700
Message-ID: <000701c151c5$60fd3a60$03f9000a@eMachine1>
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>

I am not a radacal by any means, but I have no choice but to throw my support for them on this one.  This RAND proposal is radacal in its own self.

Please consider that no small perportion of web developers will deviate from W3C simply because you will leave them with no other choice.

You make impossible the continued use and development of many of the web's most used technologies by RAND.  You will forcibly remove the bulk of web developers from compliance with W3C.  Others will do it out of pure anger and feelings of betrayal.  

I hope you note that the consequences of such actions are very substantial.  

The stubborn minds supporting this proposal will more than likely defend it on grounds such as:

(1) "The web is a commercial market" -- Only partly.  
(2) "The benefits of certain new standards cannot be realized if their patented technologies are not allowed." -- Standards help us by creating infrustructure for the existence of new markets and services.  Maximizing those benefits requires that they remain free.  In software design, there are many ways to skin any cat.
(3) "We will still review and ensure that only standard's non-detrimental to free software are accepted." -- The W3C doesn't have the authority to tell organizations they can't abuse the priviledge.  We also, are not likely to trust the W3C with such a responsibility in light of pressure from organizations historically eager to abuse standards for their own benefit.

I am insulted by this proposal.  And I feel betrayed already.  Acceptance of it
will ensure a fork in web standards.

--Matthew
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 15:56:28 GMT

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