- From: reed mideke <rfm@redshift.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:51:41 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
To quote from the introduction to the proposed changes: # The sine qua non of the Web revolution is the open # standards environment on which the Web is built and # continues to grow. The Web's open technical standards # have developed through the open, collaborative process # created by the World Wide Web Consortium. One could go on to note how attempts to create proprietary standards have generally produced much less useful results, and how the large players in the industry have used patents to bully anyone the perceive as a threat. I am gravely disappointed by proposed extension of patent policy. As a U.S. citizen, I have seen patents go from a mechanism protecting inventors, to a tool used by large interests as a bargaining point. Patents no longer defend the small innovator (because we cannot afford the lawyers to defend them), and many flawed patents continue to stand, because of the legal costs of fighting them. To further this situation by allowing it into the W3C standards process is a disgrace and a terrible disservice to the internet community. The successes of the internet and web have grown out of an open environment, where all aspects of the standard was open to everyone. Much of the software that drives the internet today was written as a completely free reference implementation of an open standard (often written at the authors own cost). To limit this by charging any kind of royalty is goes against the principles that have got us where we are today. One this general background, I'd like to raise some specific issues: 1) What constitutes a 'fair' license fee ? For a large corporation, $10,000 could be a very cheap patent license. For a private citizen, or university researcher, it could be an insurmountable barrier. 2) If there is a royalty on distribution (e.g. $1.00 per copy distributed) how could this be applied to free software and still be 'fair' ? The strength of free reference implmentations lies in being able to make it available to anyone without charge or undue complication. Even if the fee itself is not burdensome to users, the collection mechanism could make this distrubtion method unworkable. 3) What stops the patent owners from using their patent to coerce independent developers or competitors. For example a RAND license may require that the patented item is used only to implement the standard. The patent hold might argue that a particular implementation uses it for something else, and BY THE MERE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION, even if it does not have a strong legal basis, prevent the implementor from distributing their implementation. As a widely respected standards body, the W3C has an opportunity to mitigate some of the problems caused by the current disgraceful state of the the USPTO (and those around the world who are starting to follow it's example). The W3C should stand up to the pressure exerted by it's industry members, by making it a policy that non-RF standards are not accepted under any circumstances, and that patented standards are strongly discouraged. If a member wishes for a technolgy which they developed to become a world wide standard, then they should be willing to make it unconditionally available to the world. The open intellectual environment that spawned the internet and web has achieved wonderful things. If we maintain it, we will achieve many more. If we do not, the W3C standards will become another battle ground for corporate intellectual property lawyers, to the detriment of users and the industry at large. Regards, Reed Mideke -- Email: rfm(at)redshift.com or rfm(at)portalofevil.com Home page: http://www.redshift.com/~rfm =========>Free Dmitry! http://www.freesklyarov.org/<============
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 16:51:24 UTC