- From: Stephen Satchell <satch@fluent-access.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 14:38:40 -0700
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Satchell Evaluations PO Box 6900 Incline Village, NV 89450-6900 (775) 832-7157 October 2, 2001 World Wide Web Consortium Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Computer Science 200 Technology Square Cambridge, MA 02139 Attn: W3C Patent Policy Working Group This Comment is in response to your call for public comments on "W3C Patent Policy Framework, W3C Working Draft 16 of August 2001", the deadline for public comment having been extended to October 11, 2001 from the original comment close date of September 30, 2001. First, let me introduce myself. My name is Stephen Satchell, and I've been a professional practitioner of Computer Science since 1971. I have been an observer of several industry standards committees, and served for ten years in the Telecommunications Industry Association Technical Committee TR-30, a recognized ANSI Standards provider, as a regular contributor and for many of those years as a voting member. I was the editor for TIA 3800, the modem testing procedures standard, for much of its development as well as one of the first implementors of the requirements. I have also been a member of the SPEC Consortium as an independent tester, on behalf of MacUser magazine. TIA performs its work under the auspices of ANSI, as does the IETF. I was unable to find anywhere on the W3C Web site that the Consortium operates as an ANSI Standards Provider, but I notice that your rules of operation conform to those rules required of ANSI Standards Providers. I therefore make the assumption that you have adopted the ANSI requirements for Standards Providers regarding the prohibition of discussion of non-technical topics in Standards-making efforts, and so I refrain from violating that requirement in this Comment. Much of my work over the past decade has been done on behalf of magazines. As a byproduct of that work, I was one of the founding members of the Internet Press Guild, an organization formed to provide an information resource for reporters and editors who either don't regularly cover the Internet or who are just starting out covering the Internet. Please inform your press contact that I would appreciate seeing press releases from W3C so that I may pass them on to the IPG and thus to over 100 writers and editors. I mention this because I saw nothing until October 2, 2001 about this proposal being out for public comment. (I don't normally cover W3C myself, but our members that do have been strangely quiet about the public comment request for this draft - unusual.) I respond formally to your Request for Comment, so I will be sending a paper copy to your office of record as well as posting an electronic copy to your discussion list. My Comments will initially be restricted to the normative portions of the Draft. I will touch on issues raised by the informative portions at the end of this paper. NORMATIVE COMMENTS COMMENT 1: Section 4, subpart (e): I agree that the definition of RAND reflects common practice in manufacturing standards organizations, but does not take into account the fact that in the World Wide Web universe there are many implementors who do not sell their wares in any way. Because they do not sell their wares, they do not have the money to obtain patents, participate in Standards forums, or litigate any patent infringement claims that may arise from their use of W3C standards. Or pay royalties. Or pay for audits. I would strongly recommend that list item 5, which reads "5. may be conditioned on payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory royalties or fees;" be DELETED and REPLACED BY "5. may be conditioned on payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory royalties or fees based on net or gross revenue earned by the first sale or first license of software products incorporating the Essential Claims in implementing the Recommendation;". I would strongly recommend that a new list item be ADDED, which reads "7. Licensor agrees to avoid engaging in litigation in which there is no first sale or first license of software products in exchange for money." COMMENT 2: Section 4 subpart (e): As a separate issue, I would like your committee to consider any entity requiring royalties or fees be required to pay "reverse" royalties and fees to implementors who do not derive any revenue from their software. My rationale for making this suggestion is that those revenue-zero implementors serve to foster the acceptance and increase deployment of standards which they implement, and so form a type of "advertising" for the intellectual property. By requiring intellectual property holders to pay for the increased marketing of their IPR, the intellectual property holder compensates those who help them earn money. This situation has no parallel in the manufacturing industry standardization world because manufacturers rarely "give away" their product; giveaway is common practice in the World Wide Web environment, and is therefore an issue distinctive in the WWW world. Astonishingly, perhaps, there is precedent for this in the telecommunications world. I point to the development of the ZMODEM protocol and zero-revenue software implementations of ZMODEM, development of which were funded by TELNET. In other areas of computing, companies have paid others to embed the use of intellectual property in to product to promote and to market the deployment of a proposed standard so that there would come to be a "critical mass" of implementation of a proposed standard. COMMENT 3: Section 5.1 Part of the decision-making process must be the documentation of the decision made and the rationale behind the decision. I recommend that a new activity be INSERTED between steps 1 and 2, that reads "1.5 Description of the decision on the proposed licensing mode and rationale, including the alternatives considered and the reasons the alternative were rejected, be developed and included with the Activity Proposal." Elsewhere, there needs to be a requirement that the rationale either become part of the Recommendation or be released as an associated Recommendation, similar to the way the rationale for ADA was published by ANSI as a separate document. COMMENT 4: Section 6.1 It strikes me as strange that a representative of the holder of the patent is not part of the PAG membership, perhaps in a non-voting role. Was this an oversight? COMMENT 5: Section 8 To all references to RAND in the second descriptive paragraph, CHANGE to read "RF preferably, or at least on RAND". To the reference in the third descriptive paragraph to "reasonable, non-discriminatory terms" CHANGE to read "royalty-free preferably, or at least on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms". COMMENT 6: Section 8.1 In both paragraphs, I strongly recommend changing all references to RAND to RF. Royalty-free licenses need to be the norm in W3C Recommendations to allow for the broadest deployment of the Recommendations. This change ensures that license terms are known at the time any technical decision is made, and that all Essential Claims are included in their proper place in the resulting Recommendation. Making RAND the default increases the chance of surprises to implementors - perhaps an expensive surprise. RAND is covered by disclosure, so the IPR holder has recourse through the disclosure process. My change puts teeth into the disclosure requirement. INFORMATIVE COMMENTS COMMENT 7: Section 11, FAQ question/answer 1-4 I would like to applaud the efforts of this group of people to approach a very delicate and touchy subject. It's clear from the contents of Draft 16 that much thought has gone into the problem, and how to work with the problem of intellectual property inclusion in the Standards-making process. I applaud all of you. That said, I'm concerned that every single one of the writers of this Draft come from W3C and the commercial world. Are there not members of W3C from the not-for- profit world with IPR expertise? Were there invitees from not-for-profits such as the Apache Software Foundation who could participate? It's probably a little late to fix this problem, but I strongly suggest the W3C consider expanding its Patent Policy WG to include non-commercial entities, particularly people who have contributed software on a public-domain or public-license basis to the World Wide Web. CONCLUSION: After having gone through the IPR disclosure process with regard to modem patents in my work with TIA TR- 30, I understand all too well the difficulty you face, particularly given the community from which the World Wide Web was born and nurtured. It's a situation that needs to be faced, and faced with care. My proposals for change in the normative part uphold the statement your committee makes in the informative part that RAND is the inferior solution to RF. The declaration recognizes that the major contributors to the success of the World Wide Web have not been exclusively commercial software houses, but graduate students, advanced amateurs, professionals on a "busman's holiday," and commercial concerns needing a capability for themselves and making the capability available to others without charge. This last class of contributor has a very long history, in existence even longer than many of the companies that formed your committee. I speak in particular of the DEC Users Group and it's children, the Users Groups around the world, who trade software freely and without royalty. Before that, IBM mainframe users - many of them commercial concerns - exchanged tapes of useful utilities and tips. This shouldn't be news -- the practice dates back to the year 1967. (In the Burroughs world, it dates back even further, but how far I don't know; documentation is hard to find.) Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of October, 2001 Stephen Satchell.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 17:39:05 UTC