- From: Jesper Juhl <juhl@eisenstein.dk>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:41:26 +0200
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Very well written, I think you have just expressed what a _lot_ of people feel. Please add my name to the list of people supporting the views expressed by Mr. Cox in the mail below. Best regards, Jesper Juhl juhl@eisenstein.dk > W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users > > From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) > Date: Sun, Sep 30 2001 > > *Next message: Tony O'Bryan: "RAND Licensing" > > * Previous message: Allan Martinsen: "Dear Sirs/Madams" > * Next in thread: Clark C . Evans: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Clark C . Evans: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Dave Clendenan: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Bruce Krysiak: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Ben Ford: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: mcnill@talk21.com: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Martin Hamilton: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Rodent of Unusual Size: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists] > * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:42:01 +0100 (BST) > Message-Id: <E15nhn7-0006Yz-00@the-village.bc.nu> > From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> > Subject: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users > > "The W3C was created to lead the Web to its full potential by developing > common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its > interoperability" > > A lofty and great goal. A pity that the W3C now proposes to throw away its > very reason for existence. > > And now we have a new much abused patent politics buzzword > > "Non-discriminatory" > > Indeed. > > I think the W3C should ask itself how allowing parties to use patents to > prevent community projects for blind access is "non-discriminatory". > > Tim Berners Lee created an innovative environment about sharing and > referencing data. You plan to give large companies the power to stifle > that innovation. > > It says something for the sad state of W3C that the proposal in question > has been allowed to progress, carefully arranged not to be visible to > the outside world. The dates of the short consultation period do not even > appear to have been adjusted in the light of September 11th. The proposed > shortening of the consultation period also appears to violate the W3C > rules, but then I am sure you don't care. I can smell the rot from here. > > A patent-encumbered web threatens the very freedom of intellectual debate, > allowing only large companies and big media houses to present information > in certain ways. Imagine where the web would be now if only large companies > were able to use image files. > > And large companies it is. I note the distinct lack of small companies on > the proposal in question. Within the ISO where the same things happen the > money simply moves in circles between big players. Accountants and lawyers > pay $100,000 sums back and forth as part of an accounting game that they > use to keep out smaller players. > > I think we can also be sure that the kind of W3C members working this > little agenda have plans. I would bet on "Windows digitally-protected > uncopyable web pages" being one of them. Of course the protection they > really mean is "against reading by non IE users". > > The W3C must ask itself whether it plans to continue the vision of Tim or > become another ITU, a bloated dinosaur that exists more as a corporate United > Nations of communication than a standards body. > > If the W3C wishes to remain relevant to the people, to the small businesses > (the other 80%) and to the future of the web then I strongly suggest that it > > o Requires non-disclosed patents are freely licensed for use > in that standard for all. > > Without this a key infrastructure standard may suddenely be "owned" by a W3C > member who intentionally kept quiet to gain "non discriminatory" - but large - > license fees. The current wording encourages patent abuse. Licensing on a > RAND basis would only be appropriate for such a non-disclosed patent if > existing RAND licenses were on that proposal before final consultantion. > Regardless of the rest of the outcome all honest members will benefit from > such a stricter policy on non-disclosure of patents. > > o Does not "approve" or "recommend" or allow its logo to be used > on any patent-encumbered item. > > To do so will tarnish the value and reputation of the W3C name and logo. It > will also create confusion about what W3C standards indicate. > > o Restricts its activities on patent-encumbered projects to providing a > forum where such people can work on patent encumbered projects to be > released under their own names only. > > Here its activities would be in a consultative role, helping to guide these > bodies in areas of overall standards compliance and interpretation of W3C > goals. It is possible to further the web standardisation goal without > becoming part of those activities that are contrary to the original goals > of the W3C. > > This would mean SVG became a multi-vendor consortium pushing a private > specification. But let's face it - with the patents involved - that is > precisely what it is. It may even be appropriate for SVG work to be > transferred to the ITU. > > Finally we should all remember this. When patented W3C standards ensure > there is only one web browser in the world, its owners will no longer > have time for the W3C or standards. > > Alan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > * Next message: Tony O'Bryan: "RAND Licensing" > * Previous message: Allan Martinsen: "Dear Sirs/Madams" > * Next in thread: Clark C . Evans: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Clark C . Evans: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Dave Clendenan: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Bruce Krysiak: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Ben Ford: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: mcnill@talk21.com: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Martin Hamilton: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Reply: Rodent of Unusual Size: "Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users" > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists] > * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 18:14:08 UTC