Re: Patent Policy issues...

On 3/6/2012 7:16 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:02:12 +0100, Arthur Barstow 
> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> (in another thread - http://www.w3.org/mid/4F55FCC4.3090601@nokia.com ff)
>
>> So among the problems I see are:
>
>> PAGs suck (time, resources, joy from the WG, etc.);
>
> Yes... but specs that can't be implemented without worrying about 
> patents and finding out who you are going to have to pay how much suck 
> too.
>
>> the PP takes too many resources to implement for me as an AC rep and 
>> our IP department;
>
> I added a product to tracker on AC/member workload - I think there are 
> other relevant issues here.
>
>> the totality of the PP for WGs plus the CG's two patent policies are 
>> at least one patent policy too many.
>
> Raised ISSUE-4 on this.
>
>> Proposed solution #1 -> drop the PP for WGs and drop the CG patent 
>> policies and move to a lightweight model like the IETF's patent 
>> policy model
>
> This would remove the RF licensing. While it would reduce the 
> workload, it would also reduce the value we get from W3C. I suspect 
> the trade-off is not worth it for a lot of members, and personally 
> don't think it would be an improvement (much as I too hate PAGs and am 
> only writing this as a way to procrastinate doing some work for one...).
>
>> Proposed solution #2 -> drop the PP for WGs and move WGs to use the 
>> CG patent policies
>
> If we don't have agreement to get to "finished", that still causes 
> problems... the CG process has some benefits, but also some drawbacks.
>
> An alternative proposal is to re-open the PP itself. The benefits are 
> an opportunity to make it better, the drawbacks include probably not 
> having consensus on what "better" *means*, which implies a lot of work 
> finding out and a risk that what we get might not actually be better...

My preferred solution may not be realistic, but I'll throw it in.

Everyone endorses the theme that the core of the Web should be a RF 
zone.  Especially if it applies to someone else's patents.  If it's 'my' 
own patents - then sometimes I'm not so sure.

I think we could write a set of principles that characterize the theme 
"core of the Web should be RF".  This would not be part of our formal 
process, patent policy, or member agreement (because then too many 
Corporate legal departments would object).  Then we should get a set of 
senior CTOs in the industry who agree (as a group) to work together with 
the entire Membership in respecting this theme.  I believe that such a 
moral support for RF would reduce the need for PAGs.

>
> cheers
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 16:30:17 UTC