- From: kevingmoore <kevingmoore@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:50:38 -0500
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
The proposed mechanism for allowing patented or otherwise licensed technologies to be incorporated as W3C standards is fatally flawed. At best it can be viewed as an attempt by the W3C to prevent future legal issues caused by Royalty Free standards that conflict with patented technology, a conflict that is generally revealed late into the standardization process, thereby undoing much effort. At worst this mechanism can be viewed as a cheap corporate takeover of the W3C. There are several reasons why this mechanism will fail. 1) Standards now give a financial edge to one company over another - Obviously the holder of the patent that underlies the standard stands to make a good deal of money, even if the licensing arrangement is both "Reasonable" and "Non Discriminatory". If two companies are pushing competing patented technologies to solve the same problem, there will be immense effort exerted by the companies to drag the standard down one path or another. Instead of focused technical discussions, standardization will resemble nothing so much as a bitter fight over the estate of a deceased relative. This kind of legal wrangling could render the W3C (by all measures a very competent body) impotent to advance decent technical standards (licensed or not) 2) "Non Discriminatory" can never be accomplished - Some software development operations (personal or ultra small businesses) cannot charge any price for their software. From personal experience I know that the cost of setting up electronic payment systems to charge a very small amount for a product is an unworkable proposition. Even if future standards were licensed for ridiculously small amounts, say $0.10 USD to ship a browser compliant with some future new-and-improved-and-licensed HTML standard, this would be a barrier to entry for some developers. If I want to write such a browser and distribute it freely, I cannot. What if it is quite popular and 100,000 people download my software. The mere thought of having to pay $10,000 USD frightens me enough to forget about the development. Having these same people pay the $0.10 USD electronically is ridiculous when the transaction fees are greater than the price! Licensing fees on standards compliant products only provide another club for companies with vast capital (you know who you are), to beat up on the companies with very little capital (you know who you are) 3) Patented Technology has it's own method of becoming a standard : quality. In theory, patented material is of a sufficiently non-obvious nature that it elegantly solves a problem in a way no one else has thought of. Of course there are heinous exceptions to this, but the concept is there. The patented method is published, and reviewed by the development community. If it truly is the cat's meow, then companies will jump to license it as a superior technology. I believe Real Networks has seen their streaming audio software become a de facto standard, and has licensed it for inclusion in other software. This is how patents provide revenue for their holders. These are the most significant reasons why even contemplating a mechanism for standardizing licensed technology is a bad idea. The legal infighting introduced to the standards process, the false nature of a "Non Discriminatory license", and the existence of de facto standards on patented technology, are all strong indicators that the W3C stands poised to make a fatal mistake. These are my comments on the issue Kevin Moore
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 23:50:04 UTC