W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Restrictive Patent Usage

From: <tompoe@renonevada.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:36:43 -0800
Message-ID: <3DE3CD4B.6040509@renonevada.net>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org

Hello: Dan mentions the word "compromise" in his response regarding 
restrictive uses of RF patents.  How very confusing this is.

I would like some assistance in locating the topic under discussion, 
please.  I brought up the document at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/
and ran a search for the phrase "fields of use" but got zero results.

If this draft does not provide for RF [meaning without restrictions] 
patent policy, then it does not deserve the title Royalty Free Patent 
Policy.  What is the difference between a RF patent licensing policy 
with restrictions of use, and the previous RAND policy with royalties? I 
for one, will reject any "compromise" as untenable, corrupt, and without 
merit.  There is no "compromise" consideration for policies designed to 
benefit the general public. Policies that benefit the general public are 
ideals, beautiful contributions to the benefit of all.  But, all does 
not include those who would wish to profit from these policies by 
restricting access in either monetary form with royalties, or through 
restrictions on usage to those "chosen few".   There are compromises in 
politics, in commerce, but not in worldwide standards which provide the 
foundation for engaging in "fields of use".
Respectfully,
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
-- 
http://www.studioforrecording.org/
http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/
http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/Pubdomain_Bread/
--
Please go to EFF.org page at http://www.eff.org
and register for the TAKE ACTION page.
If you can donate $5 to them, that'll help, too
--
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 14:38:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:49 GMT