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

Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users

From: Bruce Krysiak <bruce@aviri.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:18:04 -0500
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OKEJKFBMMOPPIHCLFFLMIEGGGJAA.bruce@aviri.com>
I also tend to agree with Alan and Dave.  This discussion might be more
productive if someone were to present a plausable, concrete story on why the
RAND policy will be better for the web than an RF only policy.

I can see two possible scenarios for why you might take a RAND stance on
this issue:
  - recognizing a de facto standard that a company has promulgated
    (maybe Flash, Quicktime, or MP3 would fall into this category?)
  - there is no other option yet for a standard

In either case, I would argue that the W3C should encourage the development
of RF standards rather than help proprietary formats "lock-in".  I think
there should be no W3C standard rather than an official recognition of
RAND-based standards - the market will decide which option will win.  I
think the W3C should represent the voice of the internet community at large
and act in their interests as opposed to helping companies "play nice" with
each other and figure out how to lock out innovation.

Maybe I've missed an important scenario as to why you feel RAND is
preferable to straight RF licensing, and I accept there may be something I
missed.  But in the absence of that scenario, I think it is in the best
interests of the web at large for the W3C to continue a policy of RF-only
standards promulgation.

	- Bruce

 --
      Bruce Krysiak
      cofounder / chief innovation officer
      (c) 415.505.3982 /(ho) 415.752.3953
      bruce@aviri.com
    = Aviri - To Blossom =
http://volunteer.aviri.com - help NY & DC relief efforts NOW
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 14:14:09 GMT

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