Re: Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework

My model would be the case that RAMBUS lost by being on the JEDEC 
committee with submarine patents (Dell lost a similar case before).  
Require disclosure.  Require zero-cost licenses for the usage (this 
applies to both ENCODING AND DECODING - It will cripple things if the 
viewers are free, but the encoders require $1Million to use 2 lines of 
code).  Agreeing to participate in W3C would mean that any technology 
would be made available cost-free if there are any IP claims a member 
would hold.

As far as RAND licenses, It should only be agreed to if there was a GPL 
implementation available for any such technology (so I could modify and 
improve it - I could go into details but the GPL prevents things like 
publishing a unfixable crippled version).  This would insure that any 
opensource browser (e.g. Mozilla) could incorporate the technology.  If 
a company wants to incorporate the technology into a commercial product, 
THEN the RAND terms should apply, however there should be again be 
provisions about reasonableness - $1 per copy isn't reasonable if there 
is a 1 million minimum purchase.

It would probably be better to simply omit any encumbered technology.  
That would be the simplest thing to do.

But there is also a simple comprimise.  The rule stripped of legalese 
should be:
-----
If a completely free and opensource Browser AND SERVER cannot completely 
and effectively use the technology, it should not be a standard.
-----
Commercial versions could improve the implementation so might be better, 
but there should be nothing to LEGALLY prevent an opensource project 
from bettering commercial browsers.

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 11:41:08 UTC