- From: Brian Clancey <publisher@statpub.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:20:05 -0700
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
My initial response and that of most people to the concept of including patented concepts in W3C standards is simply: "Don't" I understand the committee is frustrated by this response. I am surprised that "don't" is not accepted as a valid response to the proposal. The community at large is simply stating that it does not want to be exposed to the risk of being liable to pay royalties on patents by simply trying to remain in compliance with W3C standards for web development and interoperability with other schemas and distribution modes. This is a legally and academically valid response. By incorporating patented technology into the standard, ownership of the standard is immediately and materially transferred from the community of W3C developers to private, commercial interests. More importantly, this is not necessarily done with the knowledge and consent of developers and publishers. The consequence is that we are no longer developing to an industry standard, we are developing to a commercial standard. Not only is the W3C placing developers and publishers, often without their informed consent, at risk of being forced to pay patent royalties and the risk of civil and/or criminal action, depending on the country in which action is brought against them. For our company the risks are magnified by the fact we write our own software to manage our website, including migrating existing documents to emerging standards for distribution via media other than the WWW. We could unwittingly violate software patents by simply trying to distribute information in full compliance with the various W3C standards. This could put us at grave risk in some countries and the potential of massive fines and imprisonment when any of our staff enters the United States. The Digital Millennium Act and its successors make it a very serious crime to circumvent or divine the workings of patented software. It may be appropriate for a commercial entity to patent its software creations, though some countries may end up taking a contrary view on this issue. But, W3C is not a commercial entity and it is entirely inappropriate for your organization to force developers and publishers to use patented software creations that they may otherwise choose to avoid. Public standards need to be public and free of commercial interest. As soon as they are not, they become commercial standards and then become subject to the ebb and flow of the market. In the end, including patented software technology in the W3C standards means that royalties may need to be paid to use the standards. Consequently, the standards cease being public and the W3C ceases being a public institution. It becomes a commercial institution and W3C standards become products. That will stimulate the evolution of competing products. Much of the work is already done because the existing work of the W3C can simply be slurped up by a new standards body, which will begin the long debate over how to incorporate new concepts in a patent free fashion. From that point on, there will be competing standards. The W3C initiatives will carry the risk of financial penalty if used and others will not. Both will work great at the current state of development. For future concepts they will simply battle one another, or new initiatives will be started by industry specific groups. Instead of going to one group for standards information, I will need to go to several. I trust this is a little more satisfactory than a simple "don't". Sincerely Yours, Brian Clancey President STAT Communications Ltd. PMB 803, 250 H Street Blaine WA 88230 USA
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 20:22:18 UTC