- From: <rjh@world.std.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:01:00 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Since I have not had time to determine whether this reflects my employer's views, this reflects my personal views. 1) In the license mode decision, there should be a clear examination of the third alternative of having no standard rather than a RAND licensed standard. This decision should be publicly documented and voted. This decision should examine and evaluate the harm done, not just the benefit of having a standard. The harm done by an RAND standard is not merely the difficulty that it poses to educational use, research, charitable, and open source activities. It also strongly discourages further research and development into alternative approaches that might be available on an RF basis. The procedure for deciding whether the harm done by an RAND standard is less than the harm from having no standard should also reflect in a reasonable manner the inherent biases and problems introduced when the voting members represent groups that would benefit from license fees, etc. 2) In any standard, the exact patent numbers and claim numbers should be identified. It is very difficult to deal with standards when the standard merely lists 30 companies and states that these 30 companies believe that they have one or more applicable patents. It becomes a substantial legal cost to even identify what the RAND terms will be. Where patents have been issued, it should be easy for the patent owners to identify and list the relevant patents and disclaim any coverage from other patents. 3) Under 8.1, the default assumption should be that any patents will be licensed under the terms of the proposed standard. This should not become a means to convert an RF into an RAND. If a member has a patent applicable to an RF standard and does not wish to issue RF licenses, this should re-open the entire discussion of whether the standard should exist. R Horn
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 13:01:17 UTC