- From: Andrew Hagen <xah@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 21:43:13 -0500
- To: "www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org" <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
The worldwide web is a successful Internet platform for two reasons: the low cost of entry, and the low cost of operations. The first, the low cost of entry, means that nowadays just about anyone on the Internet has the ability to download web pages, contribute to already existing web sites, and even create new web sites. These facts are important in the rapid growth in Internet use. It is quick and thus cheap for a user to learn how to browse, and even how to implement web sites. The low cost is predicated on the dearth of restrictions beyond those strictly technical in nature, including the availability of bandwidth. These technical costs are held down by the fact that every facet of W3C's web architecture is unburdened by patent royalties. Besides paying a service provider, the end user faces few legal hurdles before getting involved. The second reason the worldwide web has been successful is the low cost of continued operations. To go about downloading, creating, modifying, and uploading files on the web, one does not usually have to worry about patent restrictions. One need only worry about paying patent "rents" or "taxes" if one strays from W3C standards. The W3C standards in browsing functionality, in html authoring, and in http serving are the gold standards of the web. When something goes wrong, one can always check to see if one is following the appropriate W3C standards as part of a troubleshooting step. Often, reverting to the standard solves the problem. If any W3C standard involved patent royalties, that cost would quickly be passed to the end user. As end users' costs rise, the utility of the worldwide web from a rational, cost-benefit analysis perspective would soon decrease. Inevitably, worldwide web usage would also decrease as users shift to lower cost information networks. Note that the worldwide web developed quickly, and so could a competing Internet platform, even one that has not yet been conceived. The W3C has successfully promoted the worldwide web into the premier information distribution network existing today, and into one of the greatest achievements in the history of humankind. A key strategy of the W3C's has been to keep the costs of use down by not making royalty patents a part of web standards, thus shielding end users from cost exposure. There is little functionality to be gained in adopting web standards based on patents. That which already exists in a commercial laboratory can be replicated outside of it. Admittedly, however, a small speed-up in technological availability can be gained with patents. Patents are temporary, however, and not just because the law allows them to exist for only a matter of years (17 in the US, I think). In software development, it's only a matter of time for somebody to come along and implement the same idea as the patent holder. Allow me to state it firmly: the worldwide web should not be patented, even in part. The web's continued success depends on the continued responsible stewardship of the W3C. I urge the W3C to drop the RAND licensing proposal, and any other proposal that would entail a W3C standard based on non-royalty free patents. Andrew Hagen xah@myrealbox.com http://clam.rutgers.edu/~ahagen/
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 21:43:45 UTC