W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Tim Berners-Lee Approves Patent Policy

From: tom poe <tompoe@ableweb.net>
Date: 25 May 2003 19:35:52 -0700
To: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org
Cc: C-FIT_Community@RealMeasures.dyndns.org, C-FIT_Release_Community@RealMeasures.dyndns.org, fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org, fsl-discuss@alt.org, patents@aful.org, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org, "DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org" <DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org>, DMCA-Activists@gnu.org, djweitzner@w3.org, dave@farber.net
Message-Id: <1053916555.25285.43.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Hi:  Field of use is useless.  The term is death, smelly death,
obnoxious death, and ridiculous!!!

How I really feel about the term, is that it is beyond problematic. 
Now, suppose we required that all W3 standards be registered with the
Creative Commons Project.  Suppose we required all field of use
crappolla to be identified, or, if not, automatic waiver would be
implemented under the registration?  That way, the bad guys would be
right out front where we can see them.  And the specific standard could
be shoved into the second class citizen level, by the "market".  What do
you think?

In the meantime, it appears there is a need for a standards body to be
formed that pursues standards without encumbrances.  A standards body
that the world community can rely upon for open, free standards.
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/

On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 18:19, Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> tom poe wrote:
> > 
> > Hi:  patent-free patent-free?  Yahoo!
> 
> 
> Not actually.  Tim and the W3C are not really addressing Internet standards
> in information freedom terms.  As I understand it, they have retained the
> field of use language, which means that supposedly free software that uses
> Internet standards cannot really be free.
> 
> You have to credit their reworking of the policy, which is tremendously
> improved over the direction in which they were originally going; and having
> a standards body that is capable of articulating a policy of this sort, and
> in practical terms, is tremendously constructive all by itself.
> 
> But they have not actually declared that their protocols will be freely
> usable, which really is the key.
> 
> Seth Johnson
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!
> 
> New Yorkers for Fair Use
> http://www.nyfairuse.org
> 
> [CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html
> 
> I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
> this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
> attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
> usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
> exclusive rights.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 01:12:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:50 GMT