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

Re: My opinion on new policy

From: Ilya Volynets <ilya@theIlya.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 11:21:13 -0700
Message-ID: <20010929182123.23527.qmail@gateway.total-knowledge.com>
To: "PETERSON,SCOTT K \(HP-USA,ex1\)" <scott_k_peterson@hp.com>
Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Everything is rather simple in real life.
Standard endorsed by W3C is one to most likely
be accepted by Internet community and become
significant part of infrastructure. Nothing else
really matters at this point in time. This is
THE reason why W3C is so important to Internet
development today.
If original standard developer and patent holder
doesn't have incentive to make use of standard
royaltee-free, he most likely won't. W3C was one
of most significant such incentives.
Non-royalty-free standard will not be supported by
Open Source community. In the long run it means
that importance of W3C endorsement on standards
will diminish significantly, which in turn will hurt
both Open Source development role in Internet growth,
thus hurting Internet in general.
Large corporations are currently putting all their might
into overtaking the internet, and are right in doing so:
Internet is probably only place, where people still can
exercise free speech. Shutting down this "free ideas outlet"
United States of Corporate America (or should I say
United Corporations of the World?) will be able to get
control over poeple's brain given by Radio and TV back,
and keep making whatever they want of them.
And getting control of Internet standards development is a first
step.

All of above sounds like pretentious prophesying, but
I think there is some logic behind it all, and I would
carefully consider, before discarding the idea :)
	Ilya.

On Saturday 29 September 2001 10:49 am, you wrote:
> Ilya --
>
> How is the new policy worse for free software than the present policy?
>
> I invite you to consider the concept of WG licensing "modes" that is
> discussed in section 5. The ability to charter a WG as an RF mode WG is a
> significant improvement over how other standards bodies typically approach
> the issue of essential patents.
>
> -- Scott
> ___________________________________________________________
> Scott K. Peterson               |  Hewlett-Packard Company
> Corporate Counsel               |  1 Main St., 10th floor
> email: scott_k_peterson@hp.com  |  Cambridge, MA 02142
> phone: 617 or telnet 679-9346   |
> cell:  978-764-8615             |
> fax:   617-679-9330             |
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ilya@ns2.total-knowledge.com [mailto:ilya@ns2.total-knowledge.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:51 PM
> To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
> Subject: My opinion on new policy
>
>
>  As somebody has already stated, adoption of new policy
> will cause alienation of big parts of Free Software
> Community. Many (like me) will stop supporting W3C
> because we don't feel it's right, many many more will
> be lost a bit later, when people start running into real
> problems with patents (think GIF).
>  Some other poster said that it's not W3C's fault and
> that it is surprizing W3C didn't give in to
> "patent lawyers and their friends in public bodies
> and large corporations" for so long, but I don't really
> care. If W3C feels need for more help for promoting open
> and universal standards, just put out a call. Today there
> will be even more people to hear it then ever. But
> adopting such a policy is not kind of call I'd accept,
> neither it is a way to help WWW to develop and make best
> of itself.
> 	Ilya.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAju2ESMACgkQtKh84cA8u2nG9gCcCfxFBA9K2ihrk35MxzxwVK7B
1+0Ani4U/Bq9OZfOu4dgj0OtwqMdNcWE
=r+zv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2001 14:21:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:39 GMT