- From: Alexander Falk <al@altova.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 05:40:37 +0200
- To: "'www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org'" <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0FED160BABE4D311AD2E0050DA465785531AD9@medusa.vie.altova.com>
Speaking as the AC representative for Altova GmbH, our company strongly objects to the current Patent Policy Working Draft. The reasons are: * Software patents are - on a world-wide scale - a curiosity that is only entertained by the US PTO and not by any other country. Specifically both the European Union and Japan - and many other major technology providers on this planet - have always upheld the original notion that patentability requires a physical manifestation. Only the US PTO has decided to award pure algorithmic, software, or even "business model" patents, such as the infamous Amazon.com "One-Click" patent. Every patent examiner outside the US would just laugh at you, if you tried to submit such a claim.... * The reason that most countries take a more traditional approach, is that they still support the original idea of why a patent should be granted: to protect the investment and allow the inventor reasonable time to actually produce the patented product. The idea was, that it took a couple of years (2-3) to invent something, then you would apply for a patent, then you would need a couple of years (3-5) to actual produce the patented thing, and then you would still have a couple of years (5-7) to sell it and make a good profit, before somebody else could produce the same thing. While this is still true, for physical, pharmaceutical or chemical products, this is essential untrue for software. First of all, any technology older than 10 years is utterly useless. So instead of giving the original inventor a little headstart, before the competition can produce the same thing, a patent on software established a monopoly. Secondly, with a traditional patent, a lot of money is typically spent to bring a product from patentable draft to actual production. This is, again, not the case with software. A new technology can come from original conception to actually being implemented in a commercial product in a matter of months with a budget of only a couple hundred-thousands of dollars. And thirdly, the patent process used to rely on the expertise of the patent examiner to understand the proposed patents and ensure the uniqueness and the unobviousness of any patent. Therefore, patent examiners always were qualified engineers (e.g. Albert Einstein) and really took great care in making sure that no patents are granted for obvious, non-novel, or otherwise ridiculous claims. This is again not the case with software patents. * Unless the W3C wishes to rename itself to USW2C (United States Wide Web Consortium) any draft for a patent policy needs to take into account, that the patent-system largely differs on a world-wide scale, and that such differences need to be considered when you talk about licensing terms and the like. Why would anyone outside the US wish to pay royalties for a patent on something that is not even patentable there? * Even when taking software patents for granted in a US-centric way, the questions still boils down to: what is the purpose of a W3C recommendation? If such a document is supposed to set a standard for interoperability, connectivity, networking, or any other form of collaboration, then the ONLY acceptable model for such a recommendation is royalty-free! * All this talk about "defensive" use of patents is - forgive my being so blunt - nonsense. A wise patent lawyer once said to me: "If a client ever tells me that a patent will be used defensively only, then I know that I need to be extra careful and precise in the wording of the claims, because that one will sure be used offensively within 6-8 months." * Regarding the question of whether or not patents in the current form violate the US constitution or not - this is beyond the scope of this discussion and should not be the concern of the W3C advisory committee. It may, however become an issue, once the W3C has decided that it is a USW2C after all..... We would, therefore, propose that the W3C needs to take a clear stance in making sure that ALL recommendations are (a) royalty-free and (b) not hindered by any US-centric patent system, that may adversely affect world-wide adoption. I can only fully support the opinion voiced by many on this discussion: the use of patents in connection with W3C recommendations must be avoided and - if necessary - those holding such patents must make them available to the public on a royalty-free basis, otherwise the technology can NOT ever become a W3C recommendation. Best regards, Alexander ... Alexander Falk ... President & CEO ... Altova GmbH - The XML Spy Company ... Member of the W3C Advisory Committee ... Member of the W3C XML Schema Working Group =================================================================== XML Spy 4.0 Suite: the original award-winning IDE, Document Editor, XSLT Designer, Browser Plug-In, XML Schema Editor, and B2B Server Visit www.xmlspy.com <www.xmlspy.com> to download your free evaluation copy today! =================================================================== The information transmitted in this message and/or as an attachment to it is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Altova GmbH and Altova, Inc. do not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Altova GmbH and Altova, Inc. unless otherwise specifically stated. Thank you!
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 23:42:04 UTC