RAND

A reading of the statement by Hewlett-Packard regarding RAND shows that
a schism exists within the W3C regarding the RAND issue.

I propose that the first item that should be addressed in whether the
schedule should not be posponed for the implementation of the RAND
policy statement for one year.

A crystallization of positions is taking place and communication within
effected parties is now taking place.  No standard having such a
profound impact should be acted upon so rapidly as the schedule that has
been published.

The W3C does not even consider the effect of the patent policy on the
transfer of technology across national boundaries.  Reference should be
made to the limitations that have been placed upon encryption software.
Are the patent laws that are protected in the United States that would
limit internet communication protocols to those that can afford them
going to be stopped from be used within the rest of the world?

France has sought to limit what can be placed upon servers.  Will the
protected by patent software be allowed to be placed upon servers in
this country without litigation.  Is there a parallel to Napster
litigation wherein the W3C becomes a party to the enforcement of those
that encroach upon the patent with reverse engineered software that may
straddle the patent claims and thus entangle the W3C into those that
seek workarounds to patent claims?

These questions need time to be addressed.

The first action then is to table a vote for implementation for one
year.  The second action should be to require that IBM make known any
sleeper patents that may be within their portfolio that they have reason
to believe will come under the RAND.  This is merely a integrity check
of their motives.

Sincerely,

Steven Wallace

Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 05:32:03 UTC