www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org from October 2001: by date

Wednesday, 31 October 2001
- Amplie suas vendas 111netcon@ieg.com.br
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> comercial
- Choose 3 Free Lipsticks Offer - While Supplies Last Shop@Manna
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ Bob Dewey
Tuesday, 30 October 2001
- cool link rixo@mail.de
- Re: OFFER FOR HELP Diana Muir
- Re: Summary of 15-17 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Face-to-Face meeting available Antonio Arauzo
- 21世紀超勁爆生涯講座 taipei7@yam.com
- Re: Summary of 15-17 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Face-to-Face meeting available Daniel Phillips
- Summary of 25 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Teleconference Susan Lesch
- Summary of 15-17 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Face-to-Face meeting available Daniel Weitzner
- Stop Paying For Porn! Join 4 Free Is Here! 27285338 Join4FreeFrenzy@J4F.com
Monday, 29 October 2001
- I oppose the use of patented technology in w3c standards Michael Crawford
- Employment / HR solution Sara@w3.org
- Employment / HR solution Sara@w3.org
- Patent Policy Todd Weiler
- SVENSKA WAYPOINT SIDAN reveal@bredband.net
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> viktor@hot.ee
- Protect your family from cell phone radiation Warning@sar-shield.com
- Re: [OT] Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" Jason Antony
Sunday, 28 October 2001
- From: DBBROADCAST DBBROADCAST
- Marketing is the LIFEBLOOD of your Business AYNOC InternetSales7@excite.com
Saturday, 27 October 2001
- Need a Home Loan? Let Us Help! Kevin Anderson
- Your Engineering web site is NOT Being SEEN! Important Message!
Friday, 26 October 2001
- Pre-Approved $5000 Platinum Credit Card ! credit@new-credit-report.com
- PATO: Collective Security In the Age of Software Patents Mark Bucciarelli
- NO, NO, NO! 0liv
- Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" Daniel Phillips
- Vous vendez des v�hicules mailing
- [OT] Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" Daniel Phillips
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> cb105
- Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" Jason Antony
- 私生活観察マニュアルとは・・・ adulty@nozo.kk.jp
- hi :o) Linda A. Langden
Thursday, 25 October 2001
- Re: Why I have not spoken personally about the patent policy issue Jason Antony
- Hey, check this out! QB Challenge
- MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" Martijn Dekker
- WEB infrastructure and RAND Lowell Harris
- 企業可應用NETSCREEN防火牆建置網路安全連線環境,並使不同服務享受不同頻寬,有效利用ADSL寬頻達成企業虛擬網路連線. ��~��T��@w3.org
- supply silicon metal and magnesium ingots sales@globalsilicon.com
- Mortgage Leads Available! disk343@excite.com
- Re: What is "reasonable" anyway? chuck weinberger
Wednesday, 24 October 2001
- RE: What is "reasonable" anyway? Stern, Richard H.
- Why I have not spoken personally about the patent policy issue Tim Berners-Lee
- What is "reasonable" anyway? Federico Heinz
- Play a hilarious prank call Computerised Prank Calls
- W3C - Self examination time! Blake Courtney
Tuesday, 23 October 2001
- MARKETING MF
- Talking Hand Held Dictionary Translator... Language Teacher, Inc.
- I Oppose the proposed Patent Policy Framework, dated August 16, 2001 Lynn Walton
Monday, 22 October 2001
- Quality conferencing at a low cost longdistance@repia.com
- Re: I don't like it Antonio Arauzo
- ȭ�� ġ�� ~~~ nike@nike.com
Sunday, 21 October 2001
- Fwd: Play a hilarious prank call Brian Fletcher
- Make some extra money using the internet RussSend@aol.com
- I don't like it 依瑪貓
Saturday, 20 October 2001
- Centro de Rehabilitaci�n mental y tratamiento de adicciones. Arlana
Friday, 19 October 2001
- Make A Chunk Of Money Excel In Life
- Start a home business boudha@abacom.com
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Godefroid Chapelle
- RAND patents Dan Devine
Thursday, 18 October 2001
- UK WEBCAM LIST Darron Callender
- [홍보]유학가격★폭격쎄일★누구나 갈수있는기회!도전하세요!! Youn, Roy
- W3C position on patents / business methods John Skelton
- No To The Patent Policy Joe Morris
- NO TO RAND (even after 11 October!) tim bacon
- **SPECIAL**COMPUTER MEMORY memorytogo@memorytogo4.com
- patent logic S. Vikram
- patent logic S. Vikram
- Make A Chunk Of Money Excel In Life
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Against fees Robert Hooton
Monday, 15 October 2001
- Hello, your friend recommended openxxx.net to you friendz@openxxx.net
Wednesday, 17 October 2001
- XenoFORM XenoFORM team.
- RE: W3C Responds Robert Cole
- Re: Patents Antonio Arauzo
- Make A Chunk Of Money Make Money Fast
- Patent Policy Framework draft L D
- Software development / ref:1603 Info
- advice 20 morganmarino241@yahoo.com
- Standards are to be STANDARD by Definition Warren Puckett
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Jason Antony
- Patent Policy for WWW Standards Troy W.
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
- Incorruptible.com News News@incorruptible.com
Wednesday, 17 October 2001
- �� !!! ludmila
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Scott Davis
- As suggested in the GNU WEB site.. BODRATO Stefano
- Patents Anders
- Another boring standard letter which I copied and pasted off the EFF site. Adrian Hesketh
- Read your profile.......... :) Mystic Realms
- Mike wanted you to read this. Jim
Monday, 15 October 2001
- Patent Policy Working Group] stalbert
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
- Indikator vashego uspeha!!! ludmila
Monday, 15 October 2001
- Hello, your friend recommended openxxx.net to you friendz@openxxx.net
Sunday, 7 October 2001
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Eric Backus
Monday, 15 October 2001
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Nobody
- Make Some Money Excel In Life
- Re: Apple comments on the W3C's proposal Simon Brooke
- Science-based design and development Andrey Golokhvastov
- Maximum Email Profits! David Scott (Internet Marketing Expert)
Sunday, 14 October 2001
- Anthrax... No, it's NOT a computer virus! Family Survival News
- Patent Policy Framework Marina Brown
- Earn $50,000 or more in 90 days Chriss@incorruptible.com
- New Patriotic American Bald Eagle Screen Saver - Free shareware version available for download - Newsletter mz John Herron - Eagle Stock Images
- Hello, your friend recommended openxxx.net to you friends@openxxx.net
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Edoardo Dezani
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Daniel J. Weitzner
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Daniel J. Weitzner
- Recent Patent Policy Framework Draft Baba Kofi Weusijana
- (Resend) RAND at W3C would reinforce global inequity Rick Jelliffe
- triggerhappytv butlerboys@cwctv.net
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Jason Antony
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
Saturday, 13 October 2001
- Hello, your friend recommended openxxx to you friends@openxxx.net
- Re: don't think so Hans Schulze
- RAND Ivan Thomson
- don't think so allen lackey
- what a sham jeff lackey
- Make A Little Money Excel In Life
- image damage, legitimacy of w3c endangered barbapapa
- Patents = Web only for the RICH john-paul delaney
- WWW.ZELDMAN.COM Vanessa Lintner
- web standards should NOT be patented ! Alexander Sirotkin
- Your free listing @ JabbasPalace.com Jabba@JabbasPalace.com
Friday, 12 October 2001
- Against the new patent policy. Simon White
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Daniel Phillips
- Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Daniel J. Weitzner
- "AGAINST INSANE RAND POLICY" M Mamoun
- The Social/Political Role of the W3C Brad Herman
- Web standards, W3C and others. derek lane
- Another $0.02 against. Michael Burford (GetRight)
- THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA LoreWeaver
- No patents or license rights on the web! Jack Martinez
- Patent policy comment hogarth
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> John Taylor
- www-patentpolicy-comment Randolph Vail
- Patents and standards El-Gayar, Omar
- RAND rdean71@cs.com
- ACTIVADORES BIOL�GICOS PARA ELIMINAR OLORES. �PUBLICIDAD! !PUBLICIDAD�
- I realize this is a bit late... Seairth Jacobs
- RAND IS BAD John Dooley Road Runner
- PC FLORIPA Inform�tica - Tudo para seu computador PC FLORIPA Inform�tica
- Don't do it ! Jean-Yves Delort
- Protect your life ! protect@life-protect.com
- Plese, no RAND!! Marco Maggesi
- Re: A query about RF Chris Lilley
- 10�� 8�� 14:00�ÿ� ��ߴٴϱ�.. ^^v top
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- RAND Comments August Zajonc
- asda nepp@df.copm
- asda nepp@df.copm
- Opinion Dominic Ringuet
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- Vague definitions involve a vague future. Edward Champion
- Opinion on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft M Birch
- Meta4z.com Website Giveaway! will
- Additional thoughts against RAND (long, rambling, possibly incoherent) Tony Sellers
- Additional thoughts against RAND (short) Tony Sellers
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Tim Bray
- Re: "RAND" policy Jason Antony
- Re: A query about RF Jason Antony
- RF-only is much better Anant Sahai
- Re: Comment on W3C's proposed (RAND) Patent Policy Jason Antony
- Policy is self-contradictory and could sideline W3C Mark Shewmaker
- What are you, idiots? Jorey Bump
- RAND vs Universal Access; many other loopholes Neal McBurnett
- I'm opposed to the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing option John White
- Electronic Frontier Foundation comments Seth David Schoen
- Opposition to RAND Patent Policy Amit Sahai
- Comment on W3C's proposed (RAND) Patent Policy John L. Males
- New T-shirts screenprints with original art Forrest Bass
- Reject the Patent Policy Framework. Brock Frazier
- On the W3C and Openness... Joe Crawford
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- Attn: the W3C Jason Antony
- SchemaSoft comments on 16 Aug 2001 W3C Patent Policy Framework Philip Mansfield
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards Paul H. Smith
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
Thursday, 11 October 2001
- Love of w3c vs. Devotion to free software tom@croft.tc
- Uselicensing in W3C standards Mike McCune
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- Recall: Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- SoftQuad Software's comments on the patent policy Lauren Wood
- RAND Jon Snader
- Patent Policy Framework draft and RAND weston
- seed corn William Loughborough
- NO royalty on WWW Seung Hyun Kim
- Patent is not standard 서돈키호테
- an extraordinarily bad idea Matthew Walker
- A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy (reformatted) Paul Levy
- XenoFORM XenoFORM team.
- Patent Policy Disaster Tex Horning
- Royalty-free patents only, please Allen Smith
- Apple Computer's Statement on the Draft W3C Patent Policy Wanda Cox
- A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy Paul Levy
- Patent Policy Gregory Catalone
- Oppose Patents Mark Bartlett
- RAND Proposals Alex Hogarth
- Comments Patrick Chapman
- RAND considered harmful rand.w3c@bernard-hugueney.org
- Iper1 per l'e-commerce blumoda@tiscalinet.it
- Meta4z.com Website Giveaway! will
- Patent Policy Mark Maloney
- Contribution to W3C consultation Charles Stewart
- Patent Policy Draft nucleus
- Future High Level Functionality Mark Johnson
- Patent Policy Feedback Phillip Fox
- Last day of comments, nothing changed Daniel Phillips
- PATENTS & THE WORLD WIDE WEB Jonathan Bullen
- NO! Ryan Guenther
- RAND bad, RF Good R. Steven Rainwater
- About the patent policy in W3C web standards Luca Saiu
- Proposed RAND Licensing arrangements Wally Pratt
- Re: Don't drown the spirit of generosity. Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Fatal Weaknesses of the Patent Disclosure Rules: and the Unocal P atent Debacle Peter DiMauro
- Patent Policy Framework draft Nancy Massey
- "RAND" policy Steve Summit
- Request for feedback. David Woodhouse
- Anasil - software network analyzer Anasil
- Hi from Nick of 6 ,fuller ave newdynamic
- Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Michel Debar
- patent policy Tarun Ramakrishna Elankath
- Proposed RAND licensing arrangements Mike Brodbelt
- patents on the web Oz Barron
- Opposition to RAND Proposal Glenn Elliott
- Patent Policy Framework draft Svein Pedersen
- Patented Internet standards are wrong John Hansknecht
- Don't drown the spirit of generosity. Rory Ewins
- Re: Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Lee T S
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
- Concerned about patent policy Bradley M. Kuhn
Thursday, 11 October 2001
- standards require RF Gemeinnutz@LuftHans.com
- W3C Patent Policy Claire Hitchfield
- What he said Stuart Robertson
- Setting Standards for the On-line Community Tom Worthington
- Listen to OSI and Mozilla Tore Ferner
- The Web is not just for business Chris Rimmer
- My objection to Patent of Internet standards Scottie \
- Comments of Patent policy Marc
- comments Mark Ellis
- Cadastro 944411@yahoo.com
- comments on patent policy Mark Ellis
- Patent policy comment Alisdair Odd
- Freedom is essential for Innovation Ajeet P Velankar
- RAND Proposal Jeff Herrin
- Thanks Jim Conway
- Use of `RAND' patents D. Tweed
- RAND licencing proposal Michael Zajac
- Patent Policy Framework draft linukes@hushmail.com
- Standards should help education Rafael Calvo
- The general public will fight back Rodger L. Finnestead
- open, free standards rob@robnet.com
- RAND considered harmful Steven Pothier
- Objections to RAND Licensing Mode activities Steven W McDougall
- One little voice against Brett Merkey
- No to Unreasonable and Discriminatory Standards Rajendra Shrestha
- OFFER FOR HELP edward mambo
- Patent Policy Framework Comment sdrie
- what are you thinking???? Scott Staab
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
- patent policy Ben van 't Ende
- New public W3 standards involving RAND licensing conditions. m.Lund
- Re: A query about RF Chris Lilley
- in doubt & uncertain J. van Gorkum
- patent policy Joel T Schneider
- opinion on patent policy krista gallagher
- I Oppose RAND tony@nhfpl.org
- "RAND" policy Don
- Opera Software's postion Håkon Wium Lie
- Re: Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Mike Todd
- Re: Policy Dunn_Bill@emc.com
- Support Open Web Standards Greg Kise
- Apple's RAND licensing, prior art, and the W3C process Neil Harris
- Re: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org ccooke@indigo.ie
- Patent Policy Comment / Objecting to RAND psevetson@netscape.net
- Subject: "NO" TO RAND LICENSING Bruce Lunde
- Just say no Chip Mefford
- Policy Valden Longhurst
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Roozbeh Pournader
- Keep the web open and alive Dr. Michael Evans
- WWW Patent Policy makes same mistake as dead dot-coms Joseph Wang
- Patent policy Richard Walker
- Patents = Friction John Medcalf
- RAND direction proposal Alexander Stohr
- petition dpytlewski@idea.net.pl
- Comments on draft Patent Policy Framework Joycelyn Maddux
- Proposed patent policy Greg Ward
- Patent Policy comment Jason L. Gohlke
- Suggestions for alternative procedure David Balch
- RAND: A Bad Thing Peter H.
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] Alek Lynge
- Patents rick@dimensionsinteractive.com
- Don't put your hands in my pourse !!! Nazar
- Branded/Private Label Realtime Internet Travel Booking Engine in Eleven Languages John Hazlewood
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Ben Wrighton - Wapdesign
- RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- open source is open mind Trahojen
- Risks to content (digital rights management) in proposed framework Andy Oram
- Doing a PhD? Mark Coppel
- Applause Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Patent Policy Mark Plowman
- 500 billion not enough for MS? Jsphrsa@aol.com
- Patent Policy Framework draft Jens Laland
- This is not a good idea Lars Nielsen Lind
- Comments on the proposal Paul Pathiakis
- Comments on the proposal James Green
- No to RAND David Wright
- My disquiet at RAND licenses Rajnish Bhaskar
- wealthocracy corrupting meritocracy - funding strategy proposal Tom Cowap
- Request to extend public comment period Jason Antony
- Re: Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Jozef Halbersztadt
- Request to extend public comment period Jason Antony
- New Friends From Bermuda!? Bermuda Seek
- I reject a proprietary W3C pressio main
- Since when is the web for sale? Bea Fontaine
- Response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Policy Draft Robin Peters
- Exclusion Frank Schafer
- patent policy framework draft Austin Brooks
- patented protocols. Michael Mounteney
- I am disappointed Martin Kutschker
- W3C Patent Policy Framework michael
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
- Web Standards NLK
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
- Regarding recent Patent Policy Framework draft Daniel LaBell
- www Power Grab Donald Kleyensteuber
- No RAND in Patent Policy Framework Draft Scott Busby
- Keep the WWW a free zone Philip and Shelia McArdle
- Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees Steven Champeon
- Say It Ain't So, Joe Patricia West
- Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees Jason Antony
- Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees Jason Antony
- No to RAND licensing Carl Douglas
- Comments on RAND in three sections Steven Healey
- Re: OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy TopXML - Mark Wilson
- Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Christopher Blizzard
Thursday, 11 October 2001
- Looking for Mortgage Leads??? -racbflg thunderbird@jufuceyj.yahoo.com
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Roberto Schulz
- Additional comments to W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Evelio Perez-Albuerne
- About Your Resource webmaster@axxxhome.com
- Nothing to say but "no" Jose Luis Pumarega
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
- Re: OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy Maurice Aubrey
- SEXWEB NO.1 .. MEGAWEB-SEX ! EROTICAWWW
- Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees Daniel Phillips
- Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Jonathan Borden
- Reasons not to accept patents into standards Matthew Boulos
- Comments on Patent Policy Draft matthew@toseland.f9.co.uk
- RAND licensing should not be allowed Nathaniel Gray
- Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees Jeffrey Zeldman
- so...how much is Microsoft paying you? Robin Shaw
- Web Patents Davi
- No to RAND as it is proposed Marc Verwerft
- Established Standards Eldon King
- Re: Patent Policy Framework draft Anne E. Jablinske
- FW: RAND licensing proposal. Doug Dingus
- RAND Robert Bergesch
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> jose lorenzo
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
- Clear Consequences Matthew C. Tedder
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
- RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- Publicity For Less - (Specialty Media Lists Available) PublicityWorks@netscape.net
- patent-response Edward Renaud
- Stay Open Paul Tichonczuk
- Bookstore & Library Databases (400+ New Libraries; 175 New Age Bookstores) PublicityWorks@netscape.net
- Patent Policy draft. John Hornstein
- There Was Once a Vision of a Free Internet Mark Herman II
- RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- I object!! Gayle Knutson
- Royalty-free (RF) is the only acceptable 'compromise' Ralph Hyre
- RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Jonathan Borden
- Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Jonathan Borden
- Patent Policy Gerard Boissy
- KIO Raymond Pirouz
- RAND objection Bryan Montford
- no patents please Loe, Steven
- OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy Eric S. Raymond
- RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- RAND objection Mark Brader
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Timothy Hinds
- Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Jonathan Borden
- In Response To Proposed Patent Policy cbma
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Jim Webb
- Anti-Trust Issues of RAND Daniel Probst
- Disappointed Steven.H.Rogers@seagate.com
- RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- --- dont quite understand this eddie wilson
- No, no no Cory Shubert
- W3C Patent Policy Jon Slaton
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Kai Kunze
- W3C standards should be free Asle Benoni
- A Case for Freedom massey
- My thoughts on the Patency Policy draft Glen Scott
- RAND licensing is bad Ted Wright
- Please fax two copies of your promotional literature to 08717171250. phone.08717171249@fax.08717171250
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Madden, Francis
- Thoughts on your Patent proposal Henrik Jönsson
- World Wide Web Consortium - Patent Policy Working Group wendybrek@mixcom.com
- Human evolution. Manos Batsis
- A query about RF Jason Antony
- A few more comments (this time on the specific wording of the "W3C Patent Policy Framework") Jesper Juhl
Monday, 8 October 2001
- www-patentpolicy-comment James
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
- Comment Voluspa
- Define RAND Pat Mahoney
- Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Bill Zaumen
- RAND: sounds like end of free web software, originator of WWW & W3C Danilo Almeida
- RAND cfb@sol.usc.edu
- If you feel fees must be charged, could a "sliding" scale be used steve and allana
- RAND Licensing is Counterproductive Bill Gunn
- Supporting software patents undermines credibility of W3C Dwayne C. Litzenberger
- Proposed Patent Royalty Policy for WWW Bobgmoss@aol.com
- RAND and Rolalty-Free Licensing Mode James Gartside
- Patent Policy comments Bob McDonald
- Not a good idea Dan Phiffer
Monday, 8 October 2001
- Patent Policy gregory.d.dickson@accenture.com
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
- oppose abuse of patent system to limit web free flow of information paul ih
- Comments on patent Policy Cathy Gage
- About W3C patent policy Murali Mani
- Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public Simon St.Laurent
- No Patents LMichelle
Monday, 8 October 2001
- standards vs. the public Steven R. Newcomb
Wednesday, 17 October 2001
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Oscar Zurita
Monday, 8 October 2001
- Essential Claim question Noble, Lisa
- Comments Jon Wiley
- Open Web! John Abbe
- comments on proposals Lisa Lorenzin
- Eurolinux statement on W3C RAND proposal Stefane Fermigier
- RAND licensing John Carey
- New forums/massage-board. Please join now! this-is-the-shit
- New forums/massage-board. Please join now! this-is-the-shit
- please don't Joe Desbonnet
- patent policy Daniel Webb
- Patents are damage Steven W McDougall
- Royalties Mariner's Loft
- Disagreement with new Patent Policy draft Paul Erickson
- W3C Patent Policy Framework working draft Bob Goates
- Patent Policy Framework Rob Simmons
- DON"T RECOMEND RAND Kyle Cranmer
- the W3C has a virus Robert Stockmann
- Bad Idea mplemmons@ee.net
- Disagree with RAND license Arnaud Vaneste
- Patent Policy draft Massimo, Tiziana e Federica
- say NO to RAND licensing N.Oden
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Please do not stop innovation in its' tracks Mason Miller
- policy ht
- Do not cater to the large corporations Carolyn Hillman
- Sorry to see this happening Roman
- "Non-discriminatory" commercial licenses impossible Adrian Tymes
- Patented standards are not standards. chris.gamble@CPBINC.com
- RAND is a bad Idea Karl Doblinger
- Please Rethink Your Policy Hythian
- Free Software compatibility Dmitry Borodaenko
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Douglas Holt
- The RAND proposed in the Patent Policy Framework Yves Savourel
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- RAND Patent Policy - Against davis
- No thanks Morten �rsted, [MOCH]
- Re: Six issues Jim Sansing
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org
- WaSP to W3C: Remember Your Mission Steven Champeon
- RAND Ryan Rajpaul
- Comment BEN BARRAZA
- If you love them, then run to them. nopatents@onmyweb.com
- Patent Policy Dhruva Reddy
- Comments to "In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model" Martin Olsson
- Why RAND will kill the W3C Mark Mumford
- wc3 Lorntz
- Patent Policy Comment Andrew Meredith
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> CoyoteinCA@netscape.net
- Draft proposal allowing Patents in W3C standards Josh Fryman
- Six issues arle lommel
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Don't do it. Bill Evans
- PATENTS John Seago
- Keep the Web (Royalty) Free Mark Anderson*INTERACTIVE*
- Objection to RAND Stuart Gaunt
- The Patent Policy Framework Diego Lunetta
- in support of patent-free standards Tom Garcia
- w3c RAND licence laurent
- The W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft is totally unacceptable Toby Perkins
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Thomas Longuemart
- Don't do it! Ostergaard, AJ
- In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model Peter Magnusson
- well.. Gilbert Fernandes
- Re: RAND & W3C Standards Daniel Phillips
- Stop Michael Wood
- Patent Policy Working Group Ricardo Campos
- Patent Policy Framework draft John Billings
- common sense valko yotov
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Michael Clarke
- RAND will either kill W3C or the internet David Jander
- RAND Policy Will Destroy The Internet Aaron Swenson
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND ->DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) chuck weinberger
- bad idea bwg
- Patent Policy on web standards - my concerns simeon.morgan@ideas.com.au
- Patent policy is madness Ignacio Torres Masdeu
- Vote no on rolaties bink
- comments Alice Corbin
- patents: whaddyew, crazy? Ray Gulick
- Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory ? La Place
- RAND J
Sunday, 7 October 2001
- Free money Making Website ! Costs Of Address raserat2001@yahoo.com
- Patent Policy Framework draft The Rev. Tony Begonja
- Comment on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Stuart Ambler
Monday, 8 October 2001
- No RAND licensing Alan Chiu
- RAND & W3C Standards Paul Dundas
- Stupid Ukiah Smith
- Patent Policy Matthew Arieta
Sunday, 7 October 2001
- Patent Policy Eric Johnson
- another NO vote for RAND licensing paulc@best.com
- Cease & Desist C. B. Yarling
- Scenarios related to PPG Proposal derek lane
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- "NO" TO RAND LICENSING Mike Leary
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Re: New list - www-patentpolicy-comment - maintained by djweitzner@w3.org Linda Morris
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- patent policy michael d. henry
- WWW Patent Policy Narada Hess
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Meg Otto
- RAND Tor Perkins
- Say NO to RAND licensing David Mosher
- Comments Al Johnson
- Patent Policy Framework Thomas H. Mitchell, C.P.A.
- public comment Charles Geyer
- RAND patent licensing Phil Quinn
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND ->DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- RAND patent licensing Fred Condo
- Re: Patent licensing decision Bob Hayes
- Effect of public outrage?[was Re: SVG] William Loughborough
- Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative Carol Bean
- Patent licensing decision Kevin
- W3C patent policy Richard
- Why Kenneth R Westerback
- RAND Dan Howard
- Patents don't belong on the WWW David Smith
- plea against RAND patents in W3C standards Bjoern Kriews
- RAND / Patent: NO ! Juergen Sauer
- RAND licensing and Free Software Alexandre Dulaunoy
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Claude Zervas
Saturday, 6 October 2001
- sack members John Priestley
Sunday, 7 October 2001
- Free money Making Website ! Get One Before They R Gone I Got Mine raserat2001@yahoo.com
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> RM
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Jason Antony
- Patent Policy Clifford Satlow
- Re: RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C TopXML - Mark Wilson
- Re: Tim Berners-Lee [was: SVG ad inf.] Adam Warner
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Janette Seidel
- Tim Berners-Lee [was: SVG ad inf.] Jason Antony
- Three substantial comments dr_lenz@ziplip.co.jp
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
- dangerous proposal Peter Lin
- W3C Patent Policy Russ Howard
- Re: RF > RAMMED ... sorry, I screwed up a link... Chris Worley
Sunday, 7 October 2001
- No Subject dr_lenz@ziplip.co.jp
Saturday, 6 October 2001
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
Sunday, 7 October 2001
- Patents restrict progress Michael Rowehl
- Re: RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C Adam Warner
- Three substantial comments dr_lenz@ziplip.co.jp
- Re: RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C Adam Warner
- Patent Policy - Setting the bar on "where it is not possible" Steven Weinstein
- RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C TopXML - Mark Wilson
- Don't allow standards based on RAND Licenses B.J. Herbison
- Re: SVG ad inf. Theo de Raadt
Saturday, 6 October 2001
- H.E.L.L.N.O. to R.A.N.D! Mike Amundsen
- Revised patent policy proposal Ippolito, Mark E.
- Against the RAND initiative Stephen Wynne
- No to RAND Sumanth Sukumar
- Against the Patent Policy Pedro Gil
- Well, its been fun... Claude Zervas
- RAND Eric Jacobsen
- License fees Ekkard Schnedermann
- Patents Svend Ezaki Tofte
- what are you doing?! josh penrod
- Enough about RAND Ray van der Woning
- Royalty Free YES, rand NO Tyler R Holcomb
- Rand Policy A.J. Madu
- Re: SVG ad inf. Chris Lilley
- W3C Patent Policy Peter Goode
- Re: SVG ad inf. Daniel Phillips
- I vote for free standards Jussi Hirvi
- Re: SVG ad inf. F J Franklin
- Re: SVG ad inf. Daniel Phillips
- Re: SVG ad inf. F J Franklin
- Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft José Luis Otermin
- Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative Jozef Halbersztadt
- w3c: patent (entrance barrier) R. Ivan Linderman $best$
- Re: Conern of the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty fees" chuck weinberger
- Breaking off Afonso Fernandez Nogueira
- patent concern Willis, Kevin J
- DON'T Orsted [Achtung]
- RAND licencing will re-define meaning of "standard" Risto Jokinen
- Allowing Patents on W3C standards will make the w3c redundant Christian Schaller
- You need to rethink your preposal about patented tech. Martin Veise
- Please don't shackle the web Khuzaima A. Lakdawala
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- Patents Gregory Carter
Saturday, 6 October 2001
- Concerned about the Patent Policy Peter Hanappe
- RAND (no kidding :) Lance Levsen
- Comment on The Patenting Info Keith Vick
- Why the sudden change of mind from W3C? David List
- RAND licensing = Bad Idea whj whj
- www-patentpolicy-comment Joris Van den Bergh
- Patent Policy Framework Draft Mark Koscak
- another vote against implementing RAND licensing procedures CPausheek@aol.com
- abuse of patents should not extend into standards realm John McMahon
- Conern of the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty fees" Paul H. Smith
- comments about Patent Policy Framework draft Jason Brown
- Patent policy comments Terry Griffin
- I believe the W3C should not endorse Patented Technologies Shlomi Fish
- Re: RAND will fragment the web Jason Antony
- Crazy nam nguyen quoc
- Advice from a Modem War Survivor chuck weinberger
- Wrong thing going RAND Ky Vinh
- proposed W3C patent policy Dave_Touretzky@cs.cmu.edu
- Concerning Patents rdibble@dibble.net
- LiveJournal Opposes RAND Mark Kraft
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Jason Antony
- w3.org renamed to w3.com and retired tokiko
- OT: IETF [was: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none>] Jason Antony
- OT: IETF [was: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none>] Jason Antony
- AGAINST RAND policy 3L@xwinds.com
- W3C Policy Breakdown Sean B. Palmer
- Rand licensing Barbara Pratt
- Patent Policy Working Group Curtis Hawthorne
- RAND licencing would lead to incompatibility problems Arto Teräs
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Greg Doran
Friday, 5 October 2001
- Turning the W3 into an impenetrable oligarchy kjensen
- Against RAND from Singapore Seamus Phan
- Re: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
- Introduction of patents? God forbid! vivek achary
- RAND licensing Miaoling Chiu
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Regarding the use of patented technologies in standards Paul Lee
Friday, 5 October 2001
- patents and the 3w Richard Lyons
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Allowing patented software into standards Brian Clancey
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- Strongly disapprove David Collier-Brown
Friday, 5 October 2001
- Changename: W3C to P3C Joe Doran
- NO Jerry Wood
- Patent Changes would cause problems - but not insurmountable ones. Peter Street
- No to patents Wanderley Ceschim
- Patent Policy Framework draft Mike Dewey
- No RAND Jim Edwards
- Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative Daniel Phillips
- Patents Alan Woodland
- Formal Comment on W3C Patent Policy Framework, Working Draft 16 Stephen Satchell
- RAND policy et. al. Douglas Stillinger
- royalty-free web standards Jim Phillips
- Re: Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy Luigi P. Bai
- open standards nicholas paredes
- Patent Policy Framework draft jduell@alumni.princeton.edu
- Patent policy Sascha Brawer
- Re: Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy Daniel Phillips
- Objection to the RAND licensing option in the proposed policy. Fred Sturman
- RAND "standards" Mark W. Alexander
- The proposed change Gerald Albitre
- response to RAND Patent proposal Mann, Lydia
- Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative Simon Brooke
- Fees for web standard products Ron Bogas
- Following the Money Trail / Going Backwards on Democracy Frank Grave de Peralta
- RF vs. RAND Mark Christensen
- Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- RAND licensing option is not sensible Louis C. Gasper, Ph.D., KHS
- W3C patent policy Christoph Weber
- patent policy comments Ilya Haykinson
- The open-source community demands the immediate withdrawal of the proposal for a new W3C Patent Policy !!!! TISCALI
- Patent Policy Framework draft Jon Osborn
- patents in W3C standards chtodd@core.com
- PersonalDB.net 회원으로 초대받으셨습니다. 관리자
- comments on patent policy Terrell Mitchell
- Feedback on the Patent Policy Framework draft Ulrich Berens
- Patents will undermine useability Charlie Brooks
- discriminatory patents Michiel Ettema
- What is reasonable? Eric Richardson
- Patent Policies Karl Lehenbauer
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Ricardo Signes
- royalties for web standards? no ! Brian Carroll
- After all your hard work? Alison Lister
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Millsap, Michael G.
- We have to ACT acborges@netcabo.pt
- Part II: A Concrete Alternative Steve Waldman
- Patent Policy Framework draft Gordon Osse
- Will The W3C Destroy The Web? Bill Major
- Part I: General Comments Steve Waldman
- Re: Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy Dunn_Bill@emc.com
- Licensing fees for implementation of standards Max Rible
- Re: Support for Open-Source Dunn_Bill@emc.com
- Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy Luigi P. Bai
- Thanks but no thanks. Brian Carpenter
- Patent Policy Feedback William E. \
- Re: SVG ad inf. Chris Lilley
- Patent Policy MIKE TAYLOR
- Support for Open-Source Stephen C. Scherer
- A logical appeal to retain RF standards for Web sysadmin@pinjax.com
- patents Court Demas
- Proposed RAND Patent Policy Jeb Potterfield
- Don't add RAND licensing to the W3C process Brent J. Nordquist
- proposed standards jacques@panix.com
- RAND Licensing David Walker
- w3c proposal on patents Eric Montgomery
- RAND will fragment the web Case, Scott
- Patent Policy Framework Louis Calitz
- somethin smell fishy Ken Forbes
- RAND Is A Bad Idea Duane Robertson
- Patent Policy Framework Tommy Marcus McGuire
- Proposal for modification to Member Patent Licensing Commitments. David Woodhouse
- web-patent policy comments Tyler Morrison
- "NO" on RAND patent policy Kenn Louis
- Do not let w3c become a tool for big corporations Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
- Why a RAND? W3 & Microsoft/IE -- J. Payne
- Re: Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model. David Woodhouse
- Royalties are discriminatory. David Andrew Michael Noelle
- RAND Shawn Wall
- my opinion on the subject (Web Technology Patent Area) Pieter Reint Siegers Kort
- No to patents in W3C standards. Russell McOrmond
- Proposed Patent Policy John Panzer
- please rethink your policies regarding patents and RAND, simon
- Objection to RAND Licensing Lori Dupuy
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- NO NO NO! Daisy Williams
Friday, 5 October 2001
- Objection to RAND Licensing Paul Dupuy, Jr.
- my comments on the Patent Policy for WWW Standards Dieter Van Uytvanck
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Chris Lilley
- RAND Licensing Option Lee R Boynton
- Patent Policy for WWW Standards John Gisclon
- RAND Policy for web standards Richard Coleman
- RAND implies more changes Lucio Tato
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Daniel Phillips
- Re: Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model. Daniel Phillips
- What to do about the W3C? Dave Winer
- Patent Policy Ted Bergeron
- Science != Bussiness Gustavo Carvalho Homem
- The argument against patented protocols is not ideological, it is pragmatic Russell Sears
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Chris Lilley
- Support only patent-free technology Allan Oepping
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Daniel Phillips
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Ing. Alejandro V�zquez C.
- Comments on Patent Policy dat23
- Don't change now. Effie Kolbeins
- Comments on Patent Policy Framework draft Alex Bischoff
- STRONG OBJECTION TO the inclusion of RAND Dr. Mahesh S. Raisinghani
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Chris Lilley
- W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Sudhir Gandotra
- Don't mix standards with patents Nigel Stewart
- Patent Policy Framework draft Gordon Fischer
- RAND will be disastrous for the web Steven Jarvis
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Daniel Phillips
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- Standard + RAND = Monopoly Ron Schofield
- Comments on patent policy Leonard Heyman
- SVG ad inf. F J Franklin
- comment on your patent policy framework draft ozan s. yigit
- Patent Policy Edward Terry
- Do you listen to the people? Jenny Ashman
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> dean blackketter
- Patent Policy Susan Margulies
- Vote agains the "RAND" policy. Daniel G. Linder
- no to RAND licensing XvDebbyvX@aol.com
- RAND Alex Morales
- Re: IBM's comment on w3c patent policy ZilF@aol.com
- RAND vs RF patents James Hebdon
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Patents or Standards - Choose One. J. Mark Turner
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Atabey Kaygun
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Benjamin Edwards
- Selling out to special interests on Patent Policy Benjamin Watkins
Saturday, 6 October 2001
- Patent Policies... Brian Powell
Friday, 5 October 2001
- RAND = BAD idea Darren Blaser
- RAND is incompatible with free/opensource implementations Filipe Santos
- No to patents Charles McPhate
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Chris Lilley
- say no to RAND licensing Chad K. Bisk
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- You're digging your own grave with this... Jeppe Cramon
- W3C Patent Policy/RAND Licensing Agreement BlakGard@aol.com
- RAND RFPC 1 1
- open standards are the best way to encourage innovation and interoperability Tim Edwards
- Additional sources of commentary that I believe the W3C should know about Jesper Juhl
- Just say no larfx@ticnet.com
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- RAND Phil Reardon
- Patent Policy Ronny Krashinsky
- Re: RAND Policy Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Comments on W3C patent policy Paul Schreiber
- W3C Patent Policy Joe Glenn
- May you please consider revising your draft? gjldp@iquebec.com
- RAND Definition Curtis Weyant
- RAND Policy al.gaspar@lrn.va.gov
- W3C Patent Policy Michaela Merz
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy Working Group Phillip Smith
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Peter Haight
- Just Say No to RAND Licensing Bob Glover
- Patent Policy Working Group Rick Brady
- Don't allow standards to be encumbered by patents TOM HAVILAND
- Patent Policy Framework draft Jim Jinkins
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Daniel Phillips
- Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model. David Woodhouse
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- Public comment on the Patent Policy Framework Larry Bezeau
- Patent Policy Framework draft Matt Michaelsen
- RAND scott schmidt
- RAND Licence Arnaud Vaneste
- Good Idea, make the already big companies BIGGER! Freedome On the NET
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- RAND licensing is a bad idea Patrick Hoogendijk
- Patent Policy Comment Tuomas Pellonpera
- against RAND Alexander Nakhimovsky
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Royalty-free licenses, PLEASE Pugsley Donald E CRBE
- w3c have been like a drug broker as japanese mafia? tat-s
- Patent Policy Bill Bland
- RAND Licensing Policy Alik Widge
- Not a GIF-issue again...please Henrik Olsson
- RAND licensing would have negative effect. Perttu Puska
- On the use of Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory fees Itamar Shtull-Trauring
- Comments on the new patent-policy Egil Moeller
- RAND license: no grazie Andrea Montefusco
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Giuliano Carlini
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Daniel Phillips
- Patent policy draft: DNAR? Cedric Degea
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1)
- World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy (RAND) G.M. von Hippel
- Comment to RAND Andreas Huennebeck
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- comments RAND licensing Manegold
- concerns from Poland Adam Kightley
- Some of my reasons for objecting to the Patent Policy and RAND Jesper Juhl
- RAND Steven Wallace
- RE: [WD]: Patents on Web Standards - dropping the petition S.Marshall@open.ac.uk
- RAND Policy sattanino
- The issues Paolo Campanella
- Patents not in the best interest of the web community Kurt L. Sussman
- Patents will kill the standards Bruno VERNAY
- Patent Policy disapproval Bob Evans
- Would it be the end of W3C standards as standards ? xavier
- [FWD: Please keep "RAND" out of W3 standards] DspitzDan@netscape.net
- No RAND licensing W. A. Winn, D.D., Ph.D.
- W3C members [was: Your RAND dreams] Jason Antony
- No RAND licensing FreemanAZ@aol.com
- Gartner's viewpoint Jason Antony
- Please re-think patent policy. Elliott Kirschling
- Proposed RAND Policy Glenn Jacobson
- RAND patents Greg Reagle
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- just say no Daniel Pirone
- Patents and Standards: two competing philosophies kevingmoore
- Absurd Patent Policy Howard Christeller
- NO to RAND Matthias Urlichs
- Standards Kamil Jonca
- PPF draft Rick Potthoff
- non-free patents have no place in w3c standards David Kimdon
- Re: Comment on WC-3 Patent Policy Dick Byrd
- RAND is a Thought Policeman's Charter Derek Lewis
- RAND comments. Greg Wilkins
- RAND: Misguided, Wrong Shamim Mohamed
- Patents violate founding principle of w3.org Bill Gallagher
- This says is all Tom Hood
- why the W3C should reject RAND Andrew Hagen
- Voice against the use of pateneted standards on the web vik@econz.co.nz
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> JTM
- Patent Policy Framework Draft td
- patent policy reponse Zach Welch
- Attack on democracy? Martin Leisener
- Patents have no place in standards Gavin Treadgold
- What ? are you crazy David Boosalis
- Why are you choosing the wrong way? Juan R. Pozo
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- fees SkinWalker
Friday, 5 October 2001
- charging money for e-mail, etc. William Wallace
- Cybersource vehemently opposes the W3C Patent Policy Framework proposal Con Zymaris
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- Reject RAND Shiraz Kanga
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Dave Reeve
- W3C Patent policy- ? why Michael Guercio
- Patent compromise? Tim Mensch
- Royalty on Patents Jeremy Conn
- patent inclusion in W3C standards Doug Hunt
- Fork to gnuStandards if the W3C hurts the web mark_tracey@yahoo.com
- No software patents through the back door Alexander List
- www-patentpolicy-comment Matt Kasdorf
- Please Reject the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Chris Geanious
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> gte592n@prism.gatech.edu
- Your Technology Sucks! CharlesAdams14@aol.com
- :( CharlesAdams14@aol.com
- The W3C Patent Policy undermine the W3C credibility and neutrality. TISCALI
- Comment on patent policy Lowell Harris
- Opposition to the incorporation of licensed technology- an example from the Airlines Justin Seiferth
- Idiot notion to include patented technology in web standards FDWeller on Qwest
- Think about our great great grand children. Charles Esson
- Opposed to Patents in Web Standards SuperLinux
- RAND Terry Bailey
- RAND Curt Wuollet
- comment on RAND Russell Uman
- Free Internet, Free Standards misterl@primusnetz.de
- FEES Bert Veldhuizen
- RAND is a bad idea Ray Benjamin
- No Patents J. Ramsey
- Open the W3C to developers or the developers will found a new W3C !!! TISCALI
- Application Developer Arlen A. Greer
- W3C Patent Policy Johannes la Poutre
- "Standards" driven by profit? Sounds proprietary to me! Jesse W. Asher
- YOU are completely selfish & greedy Howard Smith
- Do I understand this issue? Dietrich, Joseph
- Patent Policy Emery, Pat
- patent policy cheeser@ionet.net
- I oppose patented standards James
- Clarity is key Joe Chellman
- FTC denied Dell patent rights to VESA VL bus in 1996 Jim Davies
- RAND bordcon@earthlink.net
- This developer strongly opposes "RAND" proposal Cole Thompson
- Re: NO STANDARDS WITH PATENTS donald.hohman@pncbank.com
- keep it open please PISINI, JOHN E
- Go for it Carlos Méndez
- RAND fees Robert C. Brock
- W3C Patent Policy Jan Peter Hecking
- Avoid schism -- for the sake of the W3C Michael Welles
- Had to happen sooner or later craig
- Don't be insane! Chris Pollard, CRC
- I recognize only royalty-free standards Scott Johnston
- Public Comments Aaron Carr
- W3C policy Mirko Kloppstech
- Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Federico Heinz
- Fees on standars, Patents on standars -> BAD IDEA Antonio Arauzo Azofra
- Re: No Paul Winkler
- If WSDL doesn't qualify as low-level infrastructure, this is hopeless Mark Wutka
- Long live open information! Imre Simon
- Comments on Patent Policy Framework draft Jonathan Day
- RESPONSE -- OPPOSE PATENTS Mark Interrante
- W3C patents proposal Simon Kitching
- PPF contradicts W3C's own mission. Thomas Jedenfelt
- standard vs. patent Anoop Sarkar
- RAND is bad. You folks are Liars. Yes, I read it. Comments below. Cameron Miller
- Disgraceful Marcelo Finger
- Opposed to proposed patent policy shopbot
- W3C harry burton
- Proposal for clarification of RAND licence definition. David Woodhouse
- Re: public opinion on W3C Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Importance of Interoperability and the effects of non RF licenses danielv@netvision.net.il
- Please: Keep the Internet Royalty Free! Tobias Benedikt Hoevekamp
- Patents and the WWW Chris Brand
- no RAND Alan Bol
- Re: Incorporating proprietary formats in any recommendation is a BAD idea! Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- keep standards free and open Chip & Debby Piller
- Zolera patent policy comment Frederick Hirsch
- I stand in opposition to RAND cglasser@dotcast.com
- RAND is inviting further abuse John Telford
- Re: public opinion on W3C Pierre Phaneuf
- Latest patent drafts Bas Burger
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Kai Henningsen
- Feedback on the RAND policy Eric Johnson
- Eliminate RAND option from new patent policy, only allow RF David G. Durand
- Stop this... It's a shame Juvenal A. Silva Jr.
- Against standards incorporating 'patented' technology Enrique A. Chaparro
- Against Patent Policy Framework and RAND Ken Seikel
- W3C standards William Kramer
- Incorporating proprietary formats in any recommendation is a BAD idea! Bruce Heerssen
- RAND fees ComlLoans@aol.com
- Patent Policy Framework Michael Gbadebo
- Re: SVG Steve Cox
- No Jeffrey Foran
- RAND is Orwellian doublespeak Peter Lawson
- W3C Patent Policy Framework alan.hanna@us.datex-ohmeda.com
- open standards. D. Jeff Dionne
- In strong opposition to RAND J. Maynard Gelinas
- Your RAND dreams Dean William Schaf
- Kees heeft mijn naaktfotos op fotovanmijnex.nl gezet! Claudia Evers
- Web Standards should avoid patents Yaron M. Minsky
- Kees heeft mijn naaktfotos op fotovanmijnex.nl gezet! Claudia Evers
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- SVG: "nothing at all" is better than RAND F J Franklin
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> James Ferguson
- Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1)
- patent policy comment Brock Organ
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Chris Lilley
- what ?? JIMBOB
- Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework draft Michael Thome
- w3c patent policy framework James Lamm
- "Lower-layer infrastructure" needs clarification, timing stinks Jeffrey Zeldman
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Adam Warner
- RAND policy objection Eric Johnson
- Re: SVG Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: public opinion on W3C Chris Lilley
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Standards and patents Alan Mitchell Durham
- RAND licensing mode bad idea Paul Caton
- NO -- NEVER Parkison, Ron
- patents unacceptable in open standards George M. Sipe
- Re: Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Chris Lilley
- No. Matthew G. Saroff
- Re: Adoption of RAND license Meers M Oppenheim
- w3c shadowdaemon@earthlink.net
- Re: public opinion on W3C Pierre Phaneuf
- Re: SVG Chris Lilley
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Chris Lilley
- SVG F J Franklin
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- RAND Bob Hogan
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Sean McPherson
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: public opinion on W3C Chris Lilley
- Re: Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Prosperi.T
- YOUR FREE 0870 NUMBER! HERE IT IS!
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Chris Lilley
- This is bad, and can't possibly work. Justin Bell
- there is no need for this Robert Ellis
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- public opinion on W3C Pierre Phaneuf
- Licensing mathematics - Apple patent Jozef Halbersztadt
- Think about it david mills
- Rand Policy Richard Gregoire
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Jason Antony
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Adam Warner
- Is Apple's patent valid? Jason Antony
- OK... Jean-Philippe Moins
- Shocked Chris Howells
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Thomas Clavier
- Why standards then? Raphael Bauduin
- Further objections, and question for Janet Daly Jeremy Sanders
- The thin end of the wedge? Alan Hartley-Smith
- Web standards should be free! jonas persson. [artopod]
- Comments Andy Macdonald
- Just agreeing with a lot of people on Slashdot, and other places Martyn Ranyard
- Legal infrastructure in a W3C recommendation ? Alexandre Vitrac
- Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal Jason Antony
- Royalty free ?!? Beretta Paolo
- Re: W3C Patent Policy - FOR Jason Antony
- W3C Patent Policy chgo9127@rcnchicago.com
- problem #1: the authors Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de
- Opposing sections 4 and 5 Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de
- No e-patents at W3C ! Mathias BAVAY
- Comment Matteo Brancaleoni
- Re: [fairuse-discuss] Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Brooklyn Linux Solutions
- Patents Policy darrylb@iprimus.com.au
- Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal Daniel Phillips
- RAND equals No Standard Roberto Gliese
- Why "non-discriminatory" _is_ discriminatory Pavel Roskin
- Non-discriminatory - I don't thnk so Nik Jewell
- Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal Jason Antony
- Patents on W3C Standards john.wilson@countryenergy.com.au
- Comment Tobias von Mangoldt
- comments tim
- Can't agree Kitada Naruhide
- I don't like it Wojtek
- Re: The Once and Future Web Daniel Phillips
- VENTURE CAPITAL Malik Madaki
- comment Laurent Klinger
- Comments on Janet Daly's statement Richard Stallman
- No Bourzeix, Stephane
- Why RAND is a bad idea Walter Dnes
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Check Out the Best Prices for Your Toner Cartridges 89vkimiilgoseca@britanicainternet.net
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- Patent Policy Framework draft cmorgan@aracnet.com
- don't hide it Mark Hahn
- Licensing mathematics Frank Horowitz
- Re: The Once and Future Web Jason Antony
- Re: The Once and Future Web Daniel Phillips
- Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Paul M. Lundgren
- Tim Berners-Lee, what is your stance on RAND? Jason Antony
- Comment on Rand patent policy John Snippe
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> terry
- Including patented material in open standards is a bad idea... Jim Powers
- reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products Derk
- Response to the RAND licencing proposal Samuel Taylor
- Re: The Once and Future Web Jason Antony
- About PPF Masaaki KOGA
- W3C Greg Parker
- more work for W3C... Lnutt
- keep royalties out of the web Dan Stromberg
- Are You crazy? Lamar or Rose Combee
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Allen Small
- Something that scares me Jason Antony
- Just who the heck do you think you are rustyis
- Re: WHAT????????????!!!!!!!!!! TISCALI
- I oppose the proposal Jeremy Keith
- Opposed to inclusion of patents in standards Brian Clancey
- license fees will never be non-discriminatory bal_cyberdude@gmx.net
- The W3C kills oneself . VICECONTI.COM
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Re: No Rand for Me Jason Antony
- Such a sad state of affairs Sargent, Todd
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- problem? Jakub K. Boguslaw
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Patents in standards and national sovereignty Rufus Polson
- Well-intentioned but misguided ? Darren Munt
- RAND StonehengeTroll@aol.com
- "PATENT INSIDE" - doesnt work at all disorder@ecosse.net
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Cliffyaw@aol.com
- Patented standard Terje
- charging for use of the web David Marchand
- NO RAND soji fatoki
- Who do you think you are?????????? lreisch@DOH.STATE.NM.US
- WHAT????????????!!!!!!!!!! Jason Reid
- RAND fees HEW
- fees for Web-standard products. Kelvin Scott
- Slightly off-topic: the 'patented' technologies in SVG Simon Brooke
- RAND fees David Brenneman
- charges................... Ruth Attell
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Les Barstow
- Re: Learn from recent history. Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Les Barstow
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Frank Schwaller
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- Protect the future before it's too late!! Douglas Page
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- The protection is needed, the patents are not Les Barstow
- Re: Learn from recent history. Daniel Phillips
- RAND Will Kill Open Source Anna Au
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Sandip Sarma
- Opposition William Stookey
- It shouldn't be done Guille -bisho-
- RAND Will Discredit the W3C Jon G. Booth
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- RAND pulsj1018@aol.com
- Objection zazen
- Box cutters found in WWW Prasad Kommoju
- RAND arguments... Golden Tiger
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Donald Eastlake 3rd
- Re: [fairuse-discuss] Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Jay Sulzberger
- W3 recommendations covered by patent(s) Tor Slettnes
- patent policy vs open source and free software Matthieu Herrb
- No to RAND Ahmad Sofyan
- Your greed Mike & Anisa Golden
- web patents Mark Groen
- We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Joseph Reagle
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Rik van Riel
- RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory! guinevere liberty
- ~~~DO NOT PASS THE RAND POLICY ~~~ Russell Pankratz
- A bad idea WoodKR@ugcorp.com
- Apple's SVG patent #US5379129 Daniel Phillips
- Do you think about stuff? Hippieman
- stop it RAND Carmine Monte
- RAND fees Joan Stanton
- The internet should be available to the masses, not just the rich and educated Robert Thomas
- No RAND Policy! Erik Parris
- software patents Lou Cephyr
- We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Re: "forked" standards base Daniel Hellerstein
- The web used to be a truly open medium... Martin Sammtleben
- No Rand for Me the head lemur
- I do not support this RAND proposal W.D.Wiseman
- RAND D J Richert
- Fees Mark K. Muma
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Ryan Connor
- Comment Jim Henson
- uh hmmm April Neibarger II
- Re: Money Grubbing Daniel Phillips
- GIF royalties Thomas Ingledew
- RAND don@solderquik.com
- if (RAND) { delete W3C; W3C = NULL; W3C = new CElection } Larry Dobson
- RAND Policy Brad Coburn
- Good intentions is the road to hell paved with Valentine Iourine
- Responding to RAND Simon Brooke
- reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products bill wirt
- Re: Learn from recent history. Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- No!! RAND! Cameron Fry
- RAND Jon Doe
- Paying to develop the Web? Jeremy McPeak
- What are you doing??? William C. $Bill$ Thames
- RAND is the problem Dr E B Bettler
- Learn from recent history. Martin C S Gauffin
- Just don´t do it Jonas Myrenås
- Re: W3C patent policy Dylan Thurston
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Scott Palmer
- Rand Greg
- This must be stopped Terje
- Stop Scott Palmer
- destruction of the web... Charles McCray
- Fee's Don C Livingston
- STUPID Robert Lee Peeler
- How dare you! Mary Ayala
- Your policy. Russell Thomas
- Patented Standards? John Richter
- Re:%20IETF%20Patent%20Policy Carl Beehler
- Don't make the wrong move on patents Luke Melia
- RAND Micheal E. Barkley
- Bad Idea Mark Cunningham
- Patent Policy Framework Mike Shea Jr
- Patents and Standards Cartier, Philip
- IETF Patent Policy Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- RAND keymaker
- RAND John-Houston Design & Implementation
- Negative Feedback James Berryhill
- W3C proposal could allow patent grabs on standards John Napolitano
- Another sin of CAPITALISM Mike Guerrette
- Will the W3C Destroy the Web? Steven Bell
- Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- The web wouldent be the same Andreas Knapp
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Pascal Desroche
- Rand Policy Jesse S Housman
- Talkback: Will the W3C Destroy the Web Friou Deming
- What happened to free speech? Harger, Stacia
- Stop the RAND Fees! ChnlSrfr@aol.com
- stupid idea Gary Powell
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Rik van Riel
- RAND Fees NPPrice@aol.com
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> osmar
- Re: The Once and Future Web Daniel J. Weitzner
- Fwd: Patent Policy Comment TRUassayist1@aol.com
- The Once and Future Web Michael Rose
- A question. JKelly
- nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products. Lee
- What if we all follow your idea Pål Wester
- do not tax the Web Bob Caron
- RAND policy. reasonable and nondiscriminatory James Stanton
- RAND FEES! Roy Harrington
- Charing for web products NoSpam
- Once in a lifetime chance, please read. President of Vallke Solutions - Velius D'Unnero
- Objection - Impossible for Small Businesses Jenny Ono Suttaby
- Opposition to proposed RAND policy gavin
- My objection to the patent policy S.Marshall@open.ac.uk
- Mine field of software patents Rob Carmichael
- Do not do this emmet obrien (BI)
- Fees......... MyCrowsSoft
- W3C.....Follow The Money... Christopher M. Strehl
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Pawel Kowalski
- Patent Policy review David Leslie
- RAND isn't; Response misleading Russell Marks
- BAD BAD IDEA!!!!! RAND FEES...NOOOOOOOOO ilikechet
- Patent Comments Bryan - ECS Inc.
- SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it sup sup
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Peter Adamson
- W3C Patent Policy Framework bitleech@gmx.de
- W3C Patent Policy Framework bitleech@gmx.de
- Re: W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Jason Antony
- Patentented Standards Are Harmful David C Thompson
- RAND fees kurttasker
- Re: Stop it Stop it! Jason Antony
- (obvious) Michael Shigorin
- Patents have no place in web standards Joe Chellman
- RAND luke carter
- They are farming us! Erik Sigra
- Money Grubbing Paul Pollard
- NO to RAND Fees Rob Kerr
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Richard Stallman
- No patents on WWW Kenneth Geisshirt
- RAND Tom McDonald
- RE: Forbid RAND, require open source compatibility; W3C mission DEMANDS it Theo de Raadt
- RAND will destroy the net. Sergey Tiraspolsky
- Forbid RAND, require open source compatibility; W3C mission DEMANDS it David Wheeler
- Re: A plot to destroy W3C Daniel Phillips
- no RAND CHARGES. justin prince
- Insanity Justin Moore
- what Derek Moore
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Dan Mordan
- Stop it Stop it! Carol
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> ED Summers
- w3c bill francis
- Followup to your response: RAND is BY DEFINITION discriminatory Seth Delackner
- RAND fees Amy Dawson
- One last comment... Steve Smith
- Rand policy! Louis Barlow
- Shame on W3c Matt Mason
- RAND FEES ARE ROBBERY CRAIG FREEMAN
- patent policy Mark Kot
- W3C Patent Policy - A Comment Steve Smith
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Greg Wastek
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Brian K. Hill
- RAND Shawn Tempesta
- the worst idea for web L. Watkins
- Incompatible with GPL Ian Bicking
- NO Daniel Blum
- Charges? Rick Oldfield
- Jerks Larry
- you guys are crazy Christopher Doris
- patent policy Jack Nagel
- Patent Policy Randy Chase
- My view of the new standard that some jerks are trying to force on the rest of us bryancox2
- Your policy STINKS Me at Hotmail
- Patent Policy Review Period Extended Tim Sweeney
- RAND fees Rob Horton
- RAND policy of W3C Alan Shalloway
- The Death of the W3C Foretold Nigel Blackwell
- A plot to destroy W3C Jacek Piskozub
- w3c John Mobley
- W3C standards should remain unencumbered by patents. L. Adrian Griffis
- HERE TODAY - GONE TOMORROW? Dawn M. Burian
- Resist RAND Daniel Hartmeier
- Patent Policy Framewrok Joshua
- why software patents can not be non-discriminatory Todd L Miller
- Re: Comments Jason Antony
- The end?? Jeff Wulfekuhl
- Patent policy James Schneider
- Against RAND, patents and lawyers Jacques Pelletier
- Late but furious Terry Laurenzo
- Objection David J. Ruck
- comments Michael Kale
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Justin Daw
- Proposed Changes in W3C patent policy Cheryl Flinn
- RAND fees Zach Anderson
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> kyle willis
- Proposed W3C Patent Policy Darnell McGavock
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Ever read Orwell? samantha
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
- patent policy comment Purtell, Andrew
- Patent Policy Draft Jim Farmer
- Re: When is RAND fair phillip.harp@eer.com
- Objections to patent policy Pete Black
- Patents? Barry Coward
- RAND: What is reasonable? John McDermott
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Tropea, Greg
- brief comments Joel Hedge
- Comment on proposed policy Timothy H. Keitt
- Request for clarification on specifics and agenda Steve Cox
- Patent policy change John Arras
- No Patents Hans Fiby
- Patent Policy Issues Kent Engström
- Sad Kevin Donnelly
- RAND Shawn C. Dodd
- Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ Cynthia Jeness
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ Nicholas Del Medico
- Global Standards require Global Acceptance Will Backman
- WC3 Patent Policy Cullen M
- Response to the response to public comments Jamie McCrindle
- Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF Thomas Strauss
- new policy bad for everyone Matthew Cutts
- Comment on patent policy Simon Green
- [news] [ai] FW: RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory (fwd) James B. Bushman
- Software patents Thomas Zander
- Re: RAND Micheal Lewis
- Upcoming Patent Policy David Pendell
- Require royalty-free licenses for standards Isaac Reuben
- Internet Society France against Patents David
- Please protect my freedom Hans Insulander
- Re: your comment Janet Daly
- Patents and Standards = bad idea Mark Ross
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ Andrew Oliver
- Patent Policy Threatens Advancement Jonathan Kennedy
- Patents For What Purpose ???? Bovy, Stephen
- Patented Specification hinder development of free software alternatives Raymond Causton
- In opposition to patents on the web Orri Erling
- You guys must be nuts! Arthur Schneider
- This is Wrong... Jeffrey Michaels
- No RAND Marcus Duke
- Reject this proposal Mc Govern Ezequiel
- RF: It's not done until it's done Eric E. Coe
- W3C Patent Policy J O Holloway
- slashdot discussions John F. Whitehead
- Liars and Hypocrites Bovy, Stephen
- No patents please Don McCuiston
- No Fees in a free and open organization Kelly Held (WTMI Atlanta)
- Regarding the proposed RAND patents bac@mailops.com
- Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users user
- RAND a bad idea Jay A. St. Pierre
- W3C Must Insist on Royalty-Free patent licenses Joachim Achtzehnter
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Paul Davis
- RE: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Nick Ambrose
- Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Alan Wexelblat
- Open Source Public Feedback on RAND licenses Braddock Gaskill
- One Question..... Eric Parusel
- RAND inclusion Mark Hackett
- patent policy Charles J. Lingo
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- Avoid conflicts of interest James
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
- RAND-modified: Can a clause o ETERNAL waiving of licensing fees for open-source implementations for RAND? Antonio Rafael Dias Teixeira
- W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Thorsten Seitz
- 100% Open Standards John Billings
- Thank You Abe Milde
- patent-response Alan Langford
- "forked" standards base Chuck Adams
- Entirely Against Patent Policy... astajko1@tampabay.rr.com
- Re: RAND Toni Mueller
- comments on W3C's Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Angelos D. Keromytis
- My concerns Jim Agan
- Don't emasculate the W3C Keith MacLeod
- Royalty fees, patents, and the web. Daniel Joyce
- On RAND and patents Michiel Toneman
- Comments on Patent Policy Draft Andrew Fowler
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Rik van Riel
- Patent-free standards Matthew Rubenstein
- W3C standards shaped by members' patents sue butler
- I am appalled that the wc3 is going to patent w3c elements - whose bright idea was/is this? hp
- Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Jay Gaeta
- When is RAND fair Dr. David Alan Gilbert
- Oh. You want to destroy the Internet. Thomas Ritter
- Bad idea. Dave Brasington
- Re: RAND already being assumed for SVG mark@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk
- An open standard is only open if it's free Simon Brooke
- Re: Patent Policy Ken Martin
- Proposed Patent Policy Framework Craig Saila
- Patent Policy (Read: RAND) Troy Muller
- Is the headline: W3C embraces Patent Office policies? Rodney Smith
- RE: W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Andy Chase
- Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Sam Schillace
- RAND Dave MacKinnon
- A Patent is not a standard. Standards are Open. Patents are not. Adam Hull
- Patents and Standards Niall Walsh
- RAND George Smith
- W3C Patent Policy Keith Winston
- RAND compromise Jim Jewett
- Response to Public Comments on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft ed@alcpress.com
- W3C patent policy frameword Ian Clarke
- Free Standards are the foundation of the Internet Keith T. Kyzivat
- Patent Policy torsten
- Patent Effects David Callele
- NO W3C PATENTS. Open standarts sholud remain open. Stan Podin
- Reasonable license fees for reference and free implementations Daniel Barkalow
- RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory Bob Bushman
- patent and standard are contradictory Long, Richard J
- freedom? Todd T. Fries
- Re: Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework tz1@mac.com
- Re: RAND invalidates W3C's mission Magali Tranié
- maintain free and open interoperability P.J. Ponder
- comment on patent policy Kannan Vijayan
- Re: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? John Cowan
- patent policy comments landon dyer
- Patent Policy Comments Michael Frankel
- RAND has no justifiable rationale Rich Salz
- on Patent Policy Framework draft volodya@mindspring.com
- Innovation and incentive do not require patents Jeremy Petzold
- no commercial ownership of web mike
- Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Steve Newman
- Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF Bruce Williams
- Re: Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Alan Truesdale
- Proposed Patent Policy will not benefit the w Richard M
- Patent Policy Comment/Remarks Alex Dark
- Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest Chris Worley
- lawyers & epitaphs Brian Cort
- Royalty-free standards Mark Schult
- RE: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- NO to RAND Bob
- Patent Police Heiko Garrelts
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Charles Hixson
- NO STANDARDS WITH PATENTS John Robertson
- RAND invalidates W3C's mission Dave Reeve
- Royalty-free for GPL implementations Xavier Bestel
- New RAND policy K Briscoe
- Patent Policy - Standardizing patented tech only supports the cor porations Dillow, Barrett
- Potential Anti-trust issues with new rulling... Doug Smith
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Robert Dean
- Patent Response John J. Deighan
- RAND - feeding corporate greed. Geoff Wong
- ciao W3C Xavier Bestel
- Patent Policy Gavin Kerr
- Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest Chris Worley
- Patent Policies Armstrong.Steven
- Patents within standards Michael Atkins
- No patents Roland
- Patents and Standards erik_nelson@freddiemac.com
- Patent policy comment Ami Ganguli
- "Non-discriminatory" patents will kill the web Charles Cazabon
- W3C Patent Policy Mark C. Pawson
- No. Joe Kaczmarek
- Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Nigel Wetters
- Comments Gabriel Gonzalez
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Neil Watson
- patent policy Bryan Dougherty
- Patent Policy Jason Giglio
- Patented Product Lines as Standards. Jesse Klug
- WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? Jonathan Borden
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Robert Koch
- RAND Anthony Watson
- Against Patent Policy Framework Michael Hartle
- W3C Patent Policy: maybe a glimpse of a bigger picture Paolo Verri
- Patent policy Thomas Schulze
- patent Karl Cronin
- RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents] Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- The mechanics of standards mattias.inghe@idg.se
- No Rand. daniel smith
- REJECT RAND Harald Holtij
- Reject RAND David Laws
- default to RF instead of RAND Chad K. Bisk
- RAND inconsistent with W3C Mission Michael Rose
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing David Laws
- Do not let patents creep into W3C Nicolas Chauvat
- Stop it! Jakub Nadolny
- Re: The Burden of Proof Adam Warner
- No patent Kilobug
- I personally oppose this move Ren Hoek
- Versus RAND sea@asplinux.ru
- Don't go the easy way Thomas Breitkreuz
- Patents vs Standards Flemming Frandsen
- I am against the Proposal. CT@braehler.com
- Standards Jochem Kossen
- RAND and Free Software Erik Sigra
- Re: The Burden of Proof Joergen Ramskov
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Ron Arts
- RAND = BAD. Jeffrey Porter
- patent policy nonsense. Geoffrey King
- Power corrupts.. can you feel it? Szilard F. Takacs
- Re: Royalty-based standards Ross Golder
- Comment Marek Chmielewski
- reject using patents as basis of any W3C standard Nelson Frolund
- RE: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Theo de Raadt
- Re: failure to communicate Branden Robinson
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framew ork Working Draft Anthony W. Youngman
- Patent Policy John Gutierrez
- Patentpolicy Krzysztof Watroba
- Too many lawyers, not enough common sense. Artur Grabowski
- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Horatio Davis
- RAND proposal - obsolescence of W3C Daniel Stone
- W3C should not split the WWW Moritz Moeller-Herrmann
- Patent Policy Wojciech Dworakowski
- Re: Concerns raised by new patent policy / Correction Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int
- w3c patent "policy" Paul Evans
- RAND Tomek Barbaszewski
- Re: The Burden of Proof Daniel J. Weitzner
- Re: failure to communicate Janet Daly
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Daniel Phillips
- patentpolicy alyson kittle
- The Burden of Proof Adam Warner
- Personal request Andres Arroyave
- NO to RAND licensing Erica Townsend
- W3C Patent Policy - can we please rename the W3C to USW2C! Alexander Falk
- W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Janet Daly
- RAND objection Graham Daniell
- Time for a new W3C, this one's been hijacked Michael Ellerman
- RAND already being assumed for SVG Daniel Phillips
- RAND Policy Mr Confucious Say
- late comment, PPWG response requested Paul Rohr
- w3c standards and patents josh hoblitt
- Comment period should be extended Sean@magnonel.guild.net,
- SAME! RAND clearly wrong for standards Bob
- RAND: This is the first time I've felt bad when pondering the W3. Dave Anderson
- Re: W3C patent policy Daniel Phillips
- patents & standards Andrew Tridgell
- Request for extension of comment period Steffen Evers
- Current W3C proposal for Patent Policy changes Erik Grimes
- Patent Policy Tim O'Reilly
- Re: W3C patent policy Daniel J. Weitzner
Tuesday, 1 February 2000
- patents Víctor Romero
Monday, 1 October 2001
- What's a Standard? Matthew C. Tedder
- Re: patents Matthew C. Tedder
- RE: Factually Accurate -- But Bad Representative Matthew C. Tedder
- Economy & Innovation Matthew C. Tedder
- Please, no RAND John Eure
- RAND License P. L. Charles Fischer
- extend comment period please Erika Meyer
- Propposed RAND standand Edward Diehl
- America Inc. Mark Andrich
- Fw: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents] David Brownell
- INfrastructure vs Appliaction Thomas Strauss
- W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Darren Blaser
- Shame on you! More time for comments, and "NO" to W3C-sponsored abuse Luiz Otavio L. Zorzella
- An extended comment on this Web-patent farce Ben Henick
- Patents will break Internet Damien Danneels
- patents Joe.Hootman@bus.utexas.edu
- [OT] Adobe patents Daniel Phillips
Sunday, 30 September 2001
- patent policy Hilmar Berger
Monday, 1 October 2001
- Ill advised policy George Tucker
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Martijn Dekker
- no to w3c patents Jake Donham
- Adoption of RAND license A. Khan
- are you mad? tengu@fastermail.com
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Thomas Strauss
- Say No To RAND john.dehope@verizon.com
- Standards are for everybody - not just for companies with an IP-law and royalty budgets nielst
- W3C Patent Policy Recommendations Rod Tye
- patent policy David Udin
- Don't sell out guys... Aaron Dragushan
- Re: Do not allow patent bound standards! Daniel Phillips
- privatizing the open standards process Michael Brian Bentley
- NO! to "W3C Patent Policy Framework" NRest
- Firmly against standards 'patents' Ray Drainville / Argument from Design
- Support for Chris Lilley's comments. Against licensing fees payable for W3C Web standards. Jim Caruso
- Re: Dear Janet@w3.org Daniel Phillips
- Re: RF only, please. Randy Sargent
- Regarding patents DonEMitchell
- Re: W3C patent policy Shawn Bakhtiar
- Comments on the proposed change in patent policy Eric Runquist
- RAND Licensing Sean J. Safreed
- Re:%20Concerns%20over%20aspects%20of%20PPF&In-Reply-To=%3C3BB84832.72C6E0B @w3.org%3E&References=%3C3BB84832.72C6E0B@w3.org%3E Jim Caruso
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing charles mcknight
- Help me understand something... Ron McKown
- My comment. Michał Pasternak
- Patent Fiasco: what the W3C must do Rahul Dave
- Late comment on patents in W3 standards Eivind
- The main impetus for this may be from Microsoft Daniel Phillips
- please don't! David
- Dear Janet@w3.org No Monopolies
- great disappointment peter lin
- please look at the bigger picture! Ron McKown
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing mark@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Brent Michalski
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Bryan McCormick
- Nanotechnology Research funding apocketfullofeuros
- Please don't allow pattented technology into web standards John Fitzpatrick
- OK Janet Daly - Let us SPELL IT OUT for you David Boring
- RAND John Lewis
- RAND - why be different? Gil.WILLIAMSON@syntegra.com
- An oxymoron: proprietary standard Jacek Piskozub
- A clear NO to RAND licensing Hans-Kristian.Nordengen@raufoss.com
- So-called "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" licensing IS discriminatory ... Paul David Lukes
Sunday, 30 September 2001
- Do not allow patent bound standards! Andy Collier
Monday, 1 October 2001
- patents vs. open standards matthew.copeland@honeywell.com
- oh for god's sake Eric Norlin
- JOb OPPORTUNITY valeria curzio
- Objection to W3C patent inclusion in standards Todd Stockert
- EXTEND COMMENT PERIOD Joel Norvell
- Data interchange standards should be patent free (at least w3c recommended ones) Bryce Nesbitt
- Keep standards open Nadeem Hasan
- Patent Policy Threatens Technological Advancement Jonathan Kennedy
- patent policy aitken@echo-on.net
- It's too early to change our model Bill Taylor
- Great, just what the web needs... Mike Earl
- patent policy Joe Beach
- Stupid Idea Martin Hauptmann
- More than simply "don't" John Jensen
- Extension of comment period Michael Chermside
- In Opposition to RAND Ron Thigpen
- Definitely hurting the W3C Erik Beijnoff
- Patent Policy Framework Mark Gisleson
- Why did I have to hunt for this list? Daniel Phillips
- say no to patent Priyadi Iman Nurcahyo
- W3C Patent Policy Comments John Bintz
- RAND already damaging W3C imho Marcello Della Longa
- Patent Policy Framework Pantess, RA (Ray)
- A bad policy Ganesh and Sashikala Prasad
- Just say NO! Scott Sesher
- RAND GERALD LANNING
- Problem with a point-by-point response Leon Brooks
- Best prices 4 print sales@alphabetgraphics.net
- Procedural problem Sean Crist
- RAND is WRONG Walt Ludwick
- Re: W3C Patent Policy Framework Proposal Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: Web page cfkaran2@eos.ncsu.edu
- Patent policy Ralf Hildebrandt
- Re: W3C Patent Policy Framework Proposal Daniel J. Weitzner
- Level Playing Field sean.odonnell@sentia.ie
- Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Seth Johnson
- Comment Maciej Arciuch
- I agree with Alan Cox: RAND License on "standard" is not good Peter Hanecak
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Frank Martin
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Marcin Surowiec
- RIP W3 Charles Esson
- RAND Patents: A great thing <= So VERY wrong and misguided David Boring
- Regarding the Patent Policy Georg Bauer
- W3C and the Promotion of Fee-based Standards for the Web Vadim Plessky
- Review procedure Jeremy Carroll
- RAND Rob & Joey Knapp
- Concerns raised by new patent policy Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Paul. Knowles
- my comments Renard Jean-Marie
- Concerns over aspects of PPF Chris Lilley
- RAND Licensing samleherisson
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Matthew Gardiner
- Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users vma@antarix.net
- Late comment seb bacon
Sunday, 30 September 2001
- W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Alan Cox
Monday, 1 October 2001
- w3c patent policy changes cimarron@taylors.org
- Against RAND and Patent Policy Framework onno
- Two things phil
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> webmaster@bexleyshopping.fr
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> nabucu@free.fr
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> webmaster@bexley.com
- ambiguity of language don bright's spam buffer
- No to RAND! Patrick Durusau
- RAND Licensing Stefanos Kiakas
- Road rules aren't patented, why should protocols be? Leon Brooks
- Please, no more patent Yves BAILLY
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Comments Matthew Tuck
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Ceki Gülcü
- RAND will kill the W3C's future James Ewing
- Please keep the W3C standard royalty free Yoann Vandoorselaere
- Patents and standards Roland Kaufmann
- RAND will destroy the credibility of W3C Phil Driscoll
- RF and RAND standard policy Bernard.Snyers@ionicsoft.com
- The well of ideas Phil Howard
- W3C sows seeds of its own destruction. Gene McKenna
- Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Gene McKenna
- Is the RF license GPL-compatible? Adam Warner
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Yoann Vandoorselaere
- concrete policy modifications rm
- Patent fees Robert Rhode
- RAND Niklas Hallqvist
- keep standards open der.hans
- RF only, please. Bruce Perens
- Raising the wrong bar Joseph Sickel
- Re: Janet Daley's comments to LinuxToday Karsten M. Self
- patents Rob Helmer
- Just an example Dominique Broeglin
- RE: W3C Responds Theo de Raadt
- No Software Patents David Beckham
- RE: Patents are dangerous to open standards Theo de Raadt
- Patented Standards Mike Todd
- W3C patent policy Richard Stallman
- RAND Patents: A great thing Alex Simons
- Patent Policy Kurt Cagle
- Handwaving Michael Robinson
- RAND patents Robert Storey
- to RAND or not to RAND Rob Saul
- Opposing patent policy Jonathan S. Shapiro
- RAND proposal David Pool
- Patents Have No Place in Open Standards, Period Max Bell
- Please keep ALL standards free of RAND patents Daniel Upper
Sunday, 30 September 2001
- Absurd standards Roland Orre
Monday, 1 October 2001
- LT: Re: Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Frank C. Earl
- RAMBUS Revisited Rick Sullivan
- Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest Matt Kennedy
- Why do you want to go here today? Rick Sullivan
- Proposed Patent Policy - The Antithesis of W3C Anna
- RE: Royalty Based Standards Austin Gonyou
- Patent policy: RAND David
- Against RAND and Patent Policy Framework working draft Bruce J. Pezzlo

Last message date: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 16:07:28 UTC
Archived on: Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:07 UTC

www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org from October 2001 by date