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

Request for feedback.

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:37:59 +0100
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-ID: <19422.1002811079@redhat.com>
Sirs,

In response to the request for public comments on the proposed Patent Policy
Framework I have raised three separate issues, each with a substantive
suggestion for remedial action.

Each of the three objections was based on the assumption, which I hope turns
out to be a false assumption, that the W3C will decide to disregard the
massive public outcry and continue with its intention to publicly endorse
the practices of the US Patent Office by declaring that the minimum
acceptable licensing model for Recommendations is anything more restrictive
than the Royalty-Free model.

I appreciate that the volume of the public outcry at the PPF proposal may
cause some delay in the processing of the received comments. Nevertheless,
now that the period for public comment has reached its end, I would request
that the Working Group provide me with a estimated date by I can expect 
my comments to have been formally addressed.

In order to assist you, I shall recap in brief the three issues which I
raised:

----

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0753.html

I pointed out that the definition of a 'RAND' licence is unclear - that 
a reasonable interpretation of the definition would mean that it _must_ 
allow Free Software to be developed to implement the Recommendation. I 
proposed that the definition be modified to make this entirely unambiguous. 

----

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0890.html

I objected to the fact that the current draft of the policy appears to 
place the RAND licensing model on an equal footing with the RF model. While 
it is necessary to define the minimally acceptable standards, it is 
important not to _encourage_ them. I proposed methods by which the use of 
RNAD licences could be clearly discouraged, in favour of the RF licensing 
model.

----

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0983.html

I observed that the current draft of the policy has a serious flaw which
could allow 'submarine' patents to derail Recommendations which were
intended to be Royalty-Free. I proposed a modification to ensure that W3C
members were required to license subsequently-discovered Essential Claims
under the intended licence of the Recommendation, not only a 'RAND' licence.


I look forward to seeing your responses, both to myself and to others who 
have raised similarly serious issues with the proposed policy.

--
dwmw2
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 10:38:02 GMT

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