W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > August 2015


From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:52:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE35VmztewDPKHD1Bp9iJHFvMQZGUFNaDcoLSHRS0FKEci98kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>

thanks for bringing this up. I was also wondering about this topic.

In the European Union for example, software patents do not exist:


On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Timothy Holborn
<timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> Apologies for the request, seemed important, seemed like you're the agent.
> I came-across an issue about posting information i sourced from news, about
> a patent lodged by a US company, and in-turn, unwittingly, a thread
> developed which i feel was rather unfortunate.  Apparently US law has an
> array of legal circumstance around providing links to US patents, that are
> bad for US innovators.
> Whilst i am not fully-aware of the circumstances, locals have not suggested
> that the same rules apply.  Therein, by addressing the circumstances for a
> particular jurisdiction, the implication is that this rule may apply to all
> jurisdictions - as such - why not choose a global rule of law - say -
> Californian 'choice of law'.
> Underlying the experience was one of the reality that US law is different to
> the 'rule of law' in other lands. Therein, participants may unwittingly act
> in a manner that is not in accordance with the rules of USA and therefore
> pose a threat, not simply due to an unreasonable circumstance, but rather,
> due to disparity between systems of law and the means in which sociological,
> legal or 'webizen' / 'web-science' concepts are considered on a global
> basis.
> I assume we all believe in the rule of law of all countries and/or their
> jurisdictions for the purposes of developing global standards for our global
> communications methods. One of the possible alternatives is that this is not
> the case, and in-fact the rule of 'internet law' is ideally 'US Centric', if
> related to standards (therein, Californian law appears to be the pre-eminent
> choice).
> Yet if this is the case, the means in which the decision has been made, may
> be likened to 'licensing' 'english' with different words to different
> regions due to political circumstance, a situation we have evolved from,
> many years before internet. thankfully, 'american' vs. 'Australian' is
> in-part differentiated by it's z's, without criminal conviction.
> Does an underlying issue exist about whether we're able to work
> collaboratively towards global standards, due to sovereignty related issues?
> if so, given the field of study, and capability surrounding RDF, why does a
> circumstance in which participation seemingly pursuant to the rule of law of
> one jurisdiction, be deemed threatening to another, when the objective is to
> globally collaborate towards a particular global standard, that ideally,
> does not prefer any particular jurisdiction... particularly where, we're all
> trying to 'connect' the rest of humanity...
> I am Australian.  Not necessarily forever, yet, AU is an unavoidable part of
> my heritage.
> Should we all move to California in-order to participate wholly in the world
> of groups such as RWW, Credentials and others...
> How should W3C groups consider the role of democracies around the world,
> whilst coordinating the development of global standards for the digital
> equivalent of 'english' ("http") and are we developing global standards? or
> american standards?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPBX47zSktc  comes to mind...
> I hope that's an unfortunate situation... W3C seems to be an unincorporated
> organisation, seeking to support global communications systems - not US
> communications systems globally...
> Please advise.
> Tim.
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 13:53:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:10:51 UTC