- From: shopbot <shopbot@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:12:48 -0400
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Message-Id: <a05010401b7df6e2f1a63@[10.132.35.116]>
In addition to agreeing with the rationale expressed by J. Bashinski (see below), I would like to emphasize the extraordinary value and singularity of the WWW as an open and essentially free medium of communication and interchange. Please do not proceed with patent policy that inhibits the interaction and openness of the WWW. Sincerely, J.S. Mares From: jbash@velvet.com To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:54:46 -0700 Message-ID: <1425.1001786086@zeroknowledge.com> Subject: Comment on proposed patent policy change I wish to oppose the adoption of any policy which might cause W3C recommendations to require technology for whose use royalties must be paid. I oppose such a policy regardless of the "reasonableness" or "lack of discrimination" of the licensing process. Indeed, I would be concerned about any system which might require an implementor even to register its use of a technology. My reasons are as follows-- 1. The administrative burden of seeking and maintaining licenses would inhibit implementors. Such clerical effort can be prohibitive for a small enterprise. Even in large enterprises, it tends to slow adoption by discouraging potential project advocates, and to damage innovation by adding to the burden on projects which might wish to extend the standard or combine it with other technology. Likewise, development for in-house use becomes impractical when patents must be licensed. The licensing burden grows over time; the more standards a product or suite of products supports, the more patents have to be licensed. 2. The monetary costs of licensing have the same bad effects, but perhaps even more skewed against small, poorly funded implementors. 3. The need to seek licenses would, of course, completely prevent many open source implementations. Since open source has been a major source of innovation in the Internet and the Worldwide Web, and it would seem unwise to kill that particular golden goose. This is especially true because, in the past, open source innovations have perhaps been better for standards than closed innovations... they have been more likely both to maintain backward compatibility with existing practice, and to be offered for future standardization. 4. Many, many patents in the W3C's field of interest cover subject matter which is obvious, and which should not justify a patent at all. Unfortunately, both because of a lack of qualified examiners and because of regulatory capture effects, patent offices have been unduly free in issuing such patents. In the US, some unfortunate court decisions have reinforced this state of affairs. The result is a patent system badly in need of legislative and administrative reform, and it is the duty of all responsible technologists and technology organizations to support such reform. The policy proposed for the W3C does the opposite, serving to legitimize patents that should never have been issued, and to encourage people to apply for weak patents in the hope of being able to "tax" future standards-based products. 5. Even "reasonable" licensing has frequently been used as a barrier to entry, helping to perpetuate industrial oligarchies. In addition, even under RAND rules, licensors have been known to act in bad faith, or to practice "hidden" discrimination. Even if these abuses are the exception, rather than the rule, they are enormously destructive, and it is unwise to invite them. 6. The need to license patents may make it very difficult to conduct a development project in secret. Consider the company which is developing a new product on a tight schedule, but needs to license a patent from a competitor before the product can be released. It is true that some standards bodies operate successfully under RAND rules, and that some standards requiring licensing have been adopted without apparently serious damage. However, this has happened mostly in cases, such as consumer electronics or semiconductor manufacture, where a few large companies with enormous capital investments make essentially all of the products. In such a situation, patent licensing does not greatly increase the already large barriers to entry. This does not describe the environment in which W3C recommendations are used; in software, patent licensing costs (including administrative costs) may frequently exceed all other costs involved in developing a product. It is extremely rare that a patent covers every possible way to implement really important functionality. It is therefore usually unnecessary to standardize around a patented method. In the very uncommon cases where a patent effectively covers all ways of doing something extremely useful, the patent holder is in a position to dictate the terms under which her technology is to be used, and has no incentive to agree to RAND terms, or indeed to work through a standards body at all. In such a case, the W3C's position becomes moot. Please don't saddle us with the need to worry about patents when deciding whether to implement a W3C standard. -- J. Bashinski -- shopbot shopbot@earthlink.net
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 13:12:56 UTC