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

Re: Restrictive Patent Usage

From: <tompoe@renonevada.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:36:14 -0800
Message-ID: <3DE51EAE.6040900@renonevada.net>
To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org

Hi, Dan:  You're most gracious with your response, and I appreciate that.

Here's the way I see things.  A worldwide standard has one purpose, one 
mission, and that is to provide a foundation from which all peoples in 
the world can build upon.  It is not a compromise between commercial and 
the general public.  In fact, commercial interests have no "standing" in 
the development of worldwide standards.  Period!  Now, if they can then 
utilize the standards to engage in commerce and make a buck, have at it.

If I'm in a developing country, I have no way to participate if 
restrictions or royalties raise the cost of entry.  What kind of 
worldwide standard is it then?  There is no compromise, no consideration 
for commercial interests, period.  It's nonnegotiable.

If I live in a developed nation [beginning to have my doubts here in the 
US with all the nonsense about Poindexter and gang], I am guilty of 
elitism at the highest level, if I permit worldwide standards to be 
available only to the chosen few, for chosen few purposes.  So, change 
the charter for W3.org or stick to the charter, but don't act like 
sleaze bags in front of the poor and disadvantaged.  It's embarrassing 
for everyone.  That's just my humble, loud, and ill-informed opinion.

Dan, and everyone, please have a most sincere and enjoyable holiday, 
tomorrow, and throughout this holiday season.
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV

Dan Kegel wrote:
> tompoe@renonevada.net wrote:
>> Hello: Dan mentions the word "compromise" in his response regarding 
>> restrictive uses of RF patents.  How very confusing this is. ...
>> 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? 
> It's a pretty big difference, IMHO.  I am fairly sure that
> (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html notwithstanding)
> it's ok to write GPL'd implementations of W3 standards under the new 
> policy.
> True, there would be restrictions on how that GPL code could be used,
> but I can't see how that's totally incompatible with the GPL.
> On the other hand, it might be worth considering an amendment to
> the patent policy that made it clear that the W3C preferred
> techniques which were either unpatented, or for which a worldwide,
> no-royalty, unrestricted use license had been granted.
> (That would, for example, tilt any possible future audio standard
> towards the likes of Ogg Vorbis rather than MP3, even if the
> Frauenhofer Institut granted a restricted-use RF license.)
>  > There are compromises in
>> politics, in commerce, but not in worldwide standards which provide 
>> the foundation for engaging in "fields of use".
> On the contrary - compromise is always possible.  As long as it's
> the other guy compromising, anyway :-)
> - Dan

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 Wednesday, 27 November 2002 14:35:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:48 UTC