- From: onno <kubbe@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:44:26 +0200
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
- Cc: <kubbe@pz.nl>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Please extend the September 30 deadline for public comment of the Patent. Policy Framework. The foundation believes the W3C has not done enough to publicize this Framework and seek out comment from independent developers. As such, further public review of this framework is requested. The Foundation for Public Affairs disagrees with the w3c recommending the allowance of fee-based standards. The Foundation believes firmly that submittal of a standard should inherently mean the owner is giving up Intellectual Property (IP) rights of the technology in return for the opportunity to have the technology become widely adopted as an industry standard. The Foundation believes, and expects of w3c org, to stand behind the principles of open standards. The w3c should not stop short of this goal. The Foundation disagrees with the notion that companies should be able to continue charging fee's for technology after they have submitted the technology to the public standards review board. This change means in essence that companies are able to make a profit by ‘law’: the standard, and a the meaning of a standard should never be extended in this way. Rather, Companies should focus on profiting from technologies that enable and facilitate the open-standard. Encouraging wide adoption of the standard to other developers is in the best interest of companies building technologies based upon the standards; the best means of industry-wide adoption of standards is by virtue of a ROYALTY-FREE standard. Wide adoption of a standard will ultimately drive the market for companies' product lines, which are designed to enable and facilitate using the standard. Meanwhile, it will leave room for innovation. Already we have seen how slow the Patent and Trademark offices are to respond to new ideas. Anything but Royalty-Free Standards, the Foundation fears will result in reluctance of widespread adoption, weakening w3c standards community. Further, it will create excessive amounts of IP litigation as innovators become stymied while attempting to enhance a current fee-based standard. And worse of all, it will slow the development of technology, as companies wait very long period of time for their technology to become protected by patents before submitting them to standard review boards. Adopting "Reasonable and Non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing will stymie innovation in software development. One cost of submitting a technology for adoption as an industry standard should be full submission of the Intellectual Property to the public domain. There is clearly room for profit for those with the best tools to implement the standard. There should be no need for additional profit for the use of the standard. RAND is, perhaps, appropriate for licensing of proprietary software. However, there is no place for licensing in the use of public domain standards. This licensing model is better suited for the purchase of tools to enable use of the standard. The foundation suggests that the RAND language be a separate submittal to the w3c org as a recommended standard method vendors may adopt for use when licensing their software. However, this fee structure should NOT be instituted for industry-standards in and of themselves. Please delay the last call period, and spend additional marketing efforts to gain the opinion of independent software developers before moving forward with the recommendation of the Patent Policy Framework. Thanks you for all the great work W3C has done heretofore to keep innovation moving forward on the www. (the Foundation thanks PLUM Computer Consulting, Inc. for its eloquent piece in this thread. The has used and restated the comment due to the urgency of this matter) O. Kubbe Chairman Foundation for Public Affairs. kubbe@pz.nl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBO7gs5EiyFPO91m2TEQK2CACgkrsqcQy12m7JU0kfOdb0mRvWPSsAoIze tpwiYrCnoDUMstYSMlDPyelx =HNo1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 05:50:38 UTC