- From: Dave Reeve <NOSPAM.David.Reeve@dreeve.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:43:28 +0100
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Cc: Gerald Lane <gtlane@us.ibm.com>
Dear Gerald, I am very rarely motivated to respond directly to peoples comments on mailing lists. However as you appear to work for IBM I am amazed at the statements that you have made. I would be interested to understand how you draw your conclusions on this matter. Please, at the least read my read my response. > Historically, companies in the IT Industry have agreed to licensed patents > under Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms when participating in > formal standards setting activities. This is very true, and I am not going to argue the point. However may I draw your attention to a more Internet specific example. From what I understand the IETF have been using RAND licenses for a while; but are in the process of trying to avoid them in the future. A standard cannot be widely adopted if there are IP issues. > The policy of licensing patents under RAND terms and conditions has allowed > our best technical individuals to work together without becoming burdened > by patent issues. If you are worried about your "best technical individuals becoming burdened" then RAND is probably not going to be the answer. Firstly it is my experience of the software industry that the best technical individuals usually like the idea of their great work being used by everyone. This can indeed be at odds with the company policy about making money. Secondly most developers in the OSS/FS community (of which I believe a fair few work for IBM) are seriously concerned about software patents, RAND is a good reason why. Have you talked to any of these people in your company? > This approach encourages participants to contribute more of their patented > technology resulting in the adoption of the best technical solutions. > Allowing the standards activities to proceed in this manner, while moving > the discussion of patent licenses outside of the standards developing > organization, permits company-to-company patent dialogue and encourages > individualized solutions to patent license issues. I think it is important to remember that the web was invented at a pure research organization called CERN (nice place I worked there). It was a good technical solution and had nothing to do with patents. As technical solutions go I would say its a good one. If there is patented technology, it can still be contributed. Why not contribute it for free, that right RF. There is nothing wrong with patents when used in this way. I am sure that IBM could gain as much PR from the RF patents as CERN has from the RF web. Its doesn't always have to be about making money, sometimes that comes later. Finally you have missed the point. Going back to CERN it was not company to company communication that required encouraging it was academic to academic. Free software is all about this level of communication. RAND licensing effectively closes the door for the individual. Is that really what you are intending to achieve, many may think so. > After all - there is no conceivable W3C patent policy that could address > the non W3C member who holds a blocking patent on a W3C Recommendation. So company A holds a patent that is holding back a standard. It happens all the time. You can always work around it if there truly is no other solution. Where is that support from IBM for open source, can they not agree to buy the patent? What happened to patent portfolios; looking at the members of W3C you collectively must hold virtually every patent. Do you think company A is still as confident of making a quick buck with you lot breathing down its neck. I don't think so. > The W3C Patent Policy Framework Proposal will never provide complete > certainty for specification developers and product implementers. True. However a well designed policy can help cope with 99.9% of the issues. If all the members disclose all of the patents covered by a standard. Then agree to make them RF. No member loses out as you all will give us just as much. A common approach to dealing with non-members would probably cover the rest. At the end of the day if your software meets the needs of people, then it will be adopted. Patents are really orthogonal to this issue. They are just a way of keeping your competitors away. In the W3C you basically sit round the same table as your competitors, so what's the point in RAND. > We should allow the technical experts to work unencumbered by complicated > rules and leave the patent issues for discussion outside of the standards > organizations. Exactly, could not agree more. RF is uncomplicated and has no rules. Your developers can safely get back to work. Software patents are another issue. So until you know the answer to that its best not to close any doors. For the benefit of those who did not see it the first time around I will repeat my previous post. IBM (and yourself) have to make some decisions in what they believe in. To date I feel that the W3C have deserved respect for their efforts to support and encourage, free, open and universal information exchange. By creating open standards - everyone has the ability to participate in this vision. However in my opinion the suggested patent policy, specifically the RAND license, threatens to destroy all that the W3C has done to date. As I am sure you are aware there have been a great deal of comments on this subject in the last few days. Many expressing their own personal views on the subject. I implore the members of the W3C to examine their own viewpoint on this subject; which is clearly summarized on the following page. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/ > 1. Universal Access > > W3C defines the Web as the universe of network-accessible > information (available through your computer, phone, television, > or networked refrigerator...). Today this universe benefits > society by enabling new forms of human communication and > opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals > is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever > their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native > language, culture, geographical location, or physical or > mental ability. Ok perhaps that it is philosophical, but perhaps that is precisely what is required of a standards body; specifically a standards body that is attempting to empower information exchange. Software patents exist, be that right or wrong, and the W3C needs to make its position clear. On this we all agree. However if software independence is one of their goals then their policy, as per their mission, must not exclude anyone. Free software would suffer; as it has in similar situations in other areas. Don't be the next organization to continue the trend. "Yes. A RAND license is common among standards organizations." (source http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response#common). But that doesn't mean its right! Yes of course the big corps want to own it all; but you don't have to let them. > 4. Interoperability > > Twenty years ago, people bought software that only worked with > other software from the same vendor. Today, people have more > freedom to choose, and they rightly expect software components > to be interchangeable. They also expect to be able to view Web > content with their preferred software (graphical desktop browser, > speech synthesizer, braille display, car phone...). W3C, a > vendor-neutral organization, promotes interoperability by designing > and promoting open (non-proprietary) computer languages and protocols > that avoid the market fragmentation of the past. This is achieved > through industry consensus and encouraging an open forum for discussion. I prefer to view the web with a free browser. Its nice to have "[the] freedom to choose" and "expect software components to be interchangeable". So please continue to be a "vendor-neutral organization" and "avoid the market fragmentation of the past." I hope that the members of the W3C can see that to allow RAND would invalidate the very principals on which they are founded. If this is not the case - then it will be the darkest day the web has ever seen. -- Dave Reeve
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 19:43:31 UTC