- From: Robert Dean <rdean71@cs.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:38:29 -0500
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I agree with the W3C's goal of trying to deal with issues raised by software patents. The W3C should not get submarined by a non-disclosed patent. On the other side of the coin, the W3C's relevence becomes an issue if it starts to create recommendations that are encumbered by patented technologies requiring an "RAND" license. There are some specific points that need to be addressed: - What constitutes Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory? Literally, RAND could mean that all implementors pay the same amount. However, small companies and independent developers cannot afford to pay the same amount of royalties that a large company can. Is the W3C willing to participate in creating a webspace where individuals are barred from contributing because of the high cost of entry? If the W3C creates recommendations encumbered by RAND licenses, then it should be an absolute requirement that the licensing fee should not represent a barrier to entry for smaller developers, not capable of generating the levels of revenue of a Microsoft or an IBM. - The W3C's preference for Royalty Free technologies is not stated anywhere near as strongly as it needs to be. The overriding concern of the W3C should be the implementability of the recommendations it creates. If large companies are the only ones that are able to implement, then the W3C should not be endorsing their technologies. Sincerely, Robert L. Dean Bloomington, IL, USA Independent Web Developer
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 10:39:34 UTC