- From: Paul Caton <paul@mama.stg.brown.edu>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:45:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
At the Scholarly Technology Group we share the concerns expressed by Alan Cox, John Gilmore, Theo de Raadt and numerous others with the proposed inclusion of a so-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing mode in the charters of W3C Working Groups. The "Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft" states: "W3C recognizes that a Royalty-Free environment was essential to the growth of the Web, and the contributions of the open source developer community have been critical to its success. W3C also recognizes that software patents exist (and patent issues have become more prevalent with the growth of the Web), and ignoring them will do more harm than good. W3C is working hard to reach concensus in an area where there is an obvious tension, and to strike a balance among diverse interests." We find a curious non-sequitur between the first and second sentences. You assert the "essential" and "critical" role of a free and open development environment, an assertion we agree with wholeheartedly. However, it remains unclear how patented software could or would be similarly critical to success. We know of no case where patented software would have made a critical difference to the success of the Web. For example, GIF, while widespread, could easily have been replaced by PNG or another format had the patent issues surfaced in a timely manner. It is widely acknowledged in the computing community that many, probably the overwhelming majority, of software patents should never have been granted, due to obviuosness, prior art, or both. The fact that patent applicants have no obligation to make any attempt to discover prior art, and the fact that the PTO is grossly understaffed and underequipped to avert bogus patents make this entirely predictable. At least in the United States, patents exist for the purpose of promoting human understanding, not for the purpose of increasing individual, let alone corporate, profit: The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; -- U.S. Constitution, article I, section 8 The Constitution tolerates the monopoly of patents only as a means to an end -- to promote the progress of knowledge and learning. In the case of the Web it is clear that promotion of the arts and sciences has occurred and can still occur without relying on state-guaranteed exclusive rights to profit. Secondly, no one is asking that you "ignore" the question of software patents, only that you take a principled stand and insist on a Royalty-Free licensing mode. As the de facto standards body for the Web your first consideration should be to strongly defend the people and processes that have - by your own admission - been responsible for the Web's extraordinary growth. The comments you have received clearly show that the supporters of open source software do not perceive THEIR interests to be served by a RAND licensing model, so why do you? Within the business community itself, most small businesses will have neither any chance to participate in the "trading card" model of patent cross-licensing nor the resources to make and administer numerous license payments. As many have noted, patents strongly favor large corporate interests, often at the cost of technical, community, and national interests. Since the Web has achieved outstanding success without needing patented technologies, and since the W3C has the leverage to continue that noble tradition, we consider it incumbent upon the W3C to stand firm and utterly reject including any non-free technology in a W3C standard. Corporations that wish can stay outside the standards process; we consider the chance of some critical technology having no workaround to be extremely small (indeed, the workarounds are frequently better than the patented method, as PNG is arguably better than GIF, in part because of the absurdly low bar the PTO presently sets for patents). Corporations can and will look after their own interests, that's why they have patent lawyers. We think you should make it a matter of principle that if those corporations wish to participate in establishing the standards that will shape the future of the Web, they must leave the lawyers at home. -- Scholarly Technology Group Brown University www.stg.brown.edu Box 1841, Brown University, Providence RI 02912
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 09:45:40 UTC