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

Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process

From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:19:13 +1000
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
CC: "Daniel J. Weitzner" <djweitzner@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3BCD6931.22464.93F386@localhost>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Daniel J. Weitzner wrote:

> 
> > From: "Jason Antony" <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
> >
> > The actions outlined within are precise and remedy some outstanding 
> > flaws in the PP WG process. Why not adapt the same approach to the
> > next WD?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand how you think that should work


Simple. In a nutshell, solutions should solve problems, not exacerbate
them.

The actions outlined in your mail did exactly that: address the
shortcomings of the Patent Policy process, acknowledge the presence and
importance of open source in developing Recommendations, allow
continued feedback from the public, and so on.

The PPF WD on the other hand, by opening up the RAND avenue for patent
holders, would've unleashed chaos on web standards. I won't repeat all
the valid observations made earlier :-)

Cheers
Jason




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.4.0a
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7zNx+lkkHOmvwyb4RAp0iAJ94nxkGrDgjhmQfjPagCSQJCdkdUgCgjDMz
MDaxOT4ddhTjJC8ga3/YwEk=
=cHFX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 21:19:49 GMT

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