- From: Chris Worley <cworley@symbionsys.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 07:45:06 -0600
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
John Gilmore wrote: > I understand that RAND terms are common among the national and > international standards bodies. I've served on standards committees. > I also understand why these bodies are full of fights among > organizations to get THEIR technology adopted as a standard. It's so > THEY can get the windfall profit from forcing everyone else to license > it. > These standards committees are what Microsoft refers to as the "Balkanization of Unix", see: <http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/news/1020/22eoems.html> In game theory, it's referred to as the "prisoner's Dilemma, see: <http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/news/1020/22eoems.html> Where OS vendors work together as a team to create cross-platform standards while simultaneously plotting against each other since more profit can be made if they can assert their own proprietary lock in. Since Microsoft is a dominant player, unlike any one Unix vendor, they can win the "game". Note that they don't have to own the IP to use IP to lock out competition. For example, the "submarine patent" from Eolas (see: <htp://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010816.html>) that has emerged concerning the "embed" tag. If MS were to settle this case and pay millions in royalties, it would legitimize the patent, and allow them to only license activeX and .net code embedded in html. That means IE couldn't funnel Java to anybody's Java VM, thereby not only not supporting their own Java VM, but making sure that no support can exist for any Java VM on any IE-centric platform, killing Java. The really sneaky side of this is that Microsoft can then blame the IP holders (Eolas) for the kill -- Microsoft can easily claim that they were "minding their own business" and just abiding by somebody else's license! Simultaneously, legitimizing that patent means Open Source (i.e. mozilla) and small companies browsers (i.e. Opera) using the "embed" tag will get letters from Eolas' lawyers, which will immediately end their "embed" tag support since they won't be able to fight off a company with IP recently funded by Microsoft. If the W3C allows such patents into the protocol, then Microsoft could also deflect any anticompetitive blame to the W3C. If Microsoft is going to allow licensed protocols to be handled by IE in order to kill competition, then they must do it on their own, and not get the W3C's blessing. They must take credit for their own anticompetitive behavior and not be allowed to deflect blame to IP holders and the W3C. The W3C should have a mechanism to work around such submarines, and not "give in" under any circumstances! Web protocols and formats must remain open and unencumbered, and it is the W3C's job to maintain that goal. Chris
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 10:26:37 UTC