- From: Leon Brooks <leon@brooks.smileys.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:34:04 +0800
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
The point I want to respond to doesn't exist in the main document, the closest approach is section 2.1 and the corresponding FAQ sections [2-2] through [2-4] actually come closer to addressing it. There is no mention of two important classes of IP, namely: * IP that is so common that it is not acceptable to treat it as property, per se, like the wheel, the doorstop or the brick; and * IP which has been donated, in various ways, to the greater common good, the commonwealth. Prominent examples include the TCP/IP network layer, EMACS and FreeBSD, or for something more tangible, electrical transformers, television and chlorination. Inclusion of these two subsections of IP alongside the private definitions is vital to a balanced picture of how IP operates, and would completely alter the entire patent document. W3C has had significant success in defining common methods of addressing these two forms of IP, in fact you could call it the W3C's core business. W3C is a world leader in this field. Patents and the like are invasive: the presence of an unpatented idea doesn't prevent you from altering it and patenting the altered idea, but the presence of a patent DOES prevent you from altering an idea and using it unpatented. This infection must inevitably corrupt and undermine W3Cs activities as it is doing for the IETF, and so also corrupt and undermine the digital commonwealth, if it is allowed into contact with public standards. By nature, patents make an idea private. So be it: let the company involved be responsible for establishing and maintaining common practice around the patented thing, NOT the W3C. When you factor in axiomatic IP and public IP, it should become obvious that this is the IP domain, and patents are incompatible with it. I can't see how you would be able to sensibly reconcile Section 2.1 with this deeper understanding. Cheers; Leon
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 09:33:55 UTC