Re: W3C patent policy

For once I happen to agree with Mr. Stallman. The W3C should not involve
itself in any kind of patent restrictions or copyright enforcement. I think
most people up till now had assumed that anything having to do with the W3C
was to be in the "free domain". That is that RFC and standards based
"Intellectual Property" should be free for all to use as they wish. To try to
protect the IP of companies ( only when concerning "free domains" such as the
web) is a dangerous and malicious attack on peoples innumerable rights. I
would even go as far as saying there are some constitutional issues you are
not addressing here.

     "The sine qua non of the Web revolution is the open standards
environment on which the Web is built and continues to grow. The Web's open
technical standards have developed through the open, collaborative process
created by the World Wide Web Consortium. As Web technology has become more
commercially critical and the impact of software and business process patents
are felt more strongly in the Web development arena, W3C believes it is
necessary to adopt a more comprehensive policy and process for addressing the
relationship between the open technical Recommendations developed by W3C and
patent rights held by both W3C Members and others."  -- Overview of the
W3CPPF

As stated in the first paragraph of this document the Web "revolution" (a
continuous and non stopping movement) is an "open standard..."   -- This
single line is enough to show that any patents, copyright, or IP, is in
direct conflict with how the W3C was formed, and more importantly how the net
was formed -- by collaboration not competition.

I grant that any company wishing to hold IP or copyright, should do so at
there will, JUST NOT AS PART OF THE W3C or the INTERNET !!!

Standards are extremely important to the inter operability of any homogenous
system. Let them have there IP, but as my right to swing my hands stops where
my fist ends and your face begins, so should IP of the companies end where
there nic cards end and the peoples internet begins.

Shawn Bakhtiar
shawn@omnicomp.net
Senior Technical Advisor









> W3C patent policy
>
> From: Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.org)
> Date: Mon, Oct 01 2001
>
> *Next message: Mike Todd: "Patented Standards"
>
>    * Previous message: Alex Simons: "RAND Patents: A great thing"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:51:42 -0600 (MDT)
> Message-Id: <200110010551.XAA04108@aztec.santafe.edu>
> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
> Subject: W3C patent policy
>
> If the World-Wide Web is indeed to remain "world-wide", it must not
> depend on restricted standards.  The W3C cannot prevent others from
> developing or using restricted standards, but it should not lend its
> name to them.
>
> Therefore, the W3C should adopt a policy that all important standards
> must have free patent licenses (and thus allow free software).
> Perhaps there are some standards for specialized kinds of
> business-to-business communication which are sufficiently unimportant
> that it may not be disastrous if they are patented.  These standards
> do not really deserve the term "world-wide", but they may still be
> worth the W3C's attention.  But standards that really are of
> world-wide importance must be free.
>
> The "back-door RAND" problem pointed out by Adam Warner is especially
> crucial.  When the W3C decides that a certain standard ought to be
> patent-free, no circumstances should be allowed to annul that
> decision.
>
> Aside from these substantive changes in policy, the W3C should also
> stop using the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory", because that
> term white-washes a class of licenses that are normally neither
> reasonable nor non-discriminatory.  It is true that they do not
> discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate
> against the free software community, and that makes them unreasonable.
>
> I suggest the term "uniform fee only", or UFO for short, as a
> replacement for "reasonable and non-discriminatory".
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    * Next message: Mike Todd: "Patented Standards"
>    * Previous message: Alex Simons: "RAND Patents: A great thing"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]