- From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 13:43:49 +0100
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
While there are many of us who deplore the practice of granting patents for software methods and algorithms, it is an unhappy fact of life that these patents _are_ possible in some parts of the world, and unfortunately this affects us all. Therefore, it is necessary for the W3C to address the issue of software patents and construct a formal policy, rather than just sticking its head in the sand and ignoring the issue. To pursue the latter course of (in)action would simply lead to further problems with 'surprise' patents such as the one covering the GIF format. However, there is a grave danger that by recognising and regulating the use of patented technology in web standards, the W3C appears to legitimise that practice. The current draft of the W3C Patent Policy Framework document appears to place the RAND and RF licensing models on an equal footing; thereby encouraging the use of RAND licensing where the previous informal policy was more inclined to favour RF standards. This change in emphasis appears to be in direct conflict with the stated goals of the W3C, which I quote: 1. Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, education, ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on all continents; 2. Semantic Web : To develop a software environment that permits each user to make the best use of the resources available on the Web; 3. Web of Trust : To guide the Web's development with careful consideration for the novel legal, commercial, and social issues raised by this technology. Each one of these three goals leads unequivocally to the conclusion that the W3C must resist the use of patent-encumbered technology in web standards; however this being the real world we must accept that sometimes it will be necessary to allow such use. Therefore, while it is appropriate for the W3C to define the terms which are considered the _minimum_ acceptable level for licensing of patented technology and methods, it should be made clear that such RAND licensing schemes are to be considered a last resort, to be accepted only when there is no possibility of a timely RF solution to a given problem space. I therefore propose that the Patent Policy Framework draft be modified accordingly, by adding two new requirements to the existing process of advancement: In order for a Last Call Working Draft involving RAND-licensed technology to be advanced to Candidate Recommendation or Proposed Recommendation, two further conditions must be met in addition to those currently required: - the technical report must have held the status of 'Last Call Working Draft' for a period of no less than eighteen months prior to the advancement. - the Director must be satisfied that there is no possibility of an alternative Royalty-Free solution for the same problem space being developed within a reasonable amount of time. These additional requirements. possibly coupled with further clear guidance that RF-licensed solutions are to be favoured above RAND-licensed alternatives, would ensure that the stated goals of the W3C remain intact, while regulating and recognising the use of patented technology in Recommendations where it is necessary to do so. -- dwmw2
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 08:43:50 UTC