- From: kjensen <kjensen@sccd.ctc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 16:55:05 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
The revolution of the Internet and the collective cooperation among large companies, educators, private developers and hackers to adhere to Web standards is one of the best things to happen in the past 10 years (with some drawbacks, of course). Yes, everything eventually becomes a commodity as the new age movement has blossomed into to shaman in a can and yoga by Prada. While I strongly support copyrights on material and strongly support pay per use or subscription sites, the concept of patenting the collective cooperation of telephone networks, cable channels, servers, routers, workstations, and software developers around the world is absurd. The consortium is attempting to turn back history when the revolutionaries have already become the status quo. I suppose Roger Daltry warned us about the new boss being the same as the old boss, and I suppose we all knew the end was near when the government of Iceland sold the rights to the entire nation's DNA to Decode, but that does not mean we should surrender willingly. The proposal for web technology patents to be overseen by a Patent Advisory Group essentially empowers large corporations (those who can afford patents) to curtail and limit the development of all upstart competitors. When th federal government and several states attorneys examined a similar behavior, in terms of monopolistic and predatory business practices, they filed lawsuits. The essential issue was that this practice ultimately hurts consumers who do not have choices and get stuck with grossly inferior products. Imagine us all having to drive Edsels at the price of a Mercedes. History shows that monopolies stymie economic growth and generally precede economic downturn. This move will inevitably drive an incomprehensible amount of smaller businesses out of business. If this proposal goes through, and developers wishing to provide potentially better solutions and technologies will be prohibited by cost from doing so at the hands of a powerful oligarchy (formerly called a consortium) then we will all suffer. The Web and the Linux revolution has enabled small entrepreneurs, independent journalists, unsigned musicians, activists, watchdogs, artists, and everyone else who otherwise could not afford a voice. The laughable part of this proposal is a handful of primarily U.S. corporations is trying to govern and profit from the way the rest of the world communicates. The W3C should closely study the WTO protests to see just how well that concept is received. This attempt also smells of Western capitalists attempting to dictate the New World Order (one can pretty much argue that they already do and this proposal, and the WTO are merely a physical manifestation of what already exists). The trouble is, extremist groups around the world will lash out, as we recently saw, and the people who will get hurt are the innocents, like the secretaries just trying to make enough money to provide a decent living for their children. This move comes when the Web was finally starting to get interesting. We had the http protocol, but we have so many choices as to how to generate content - PHP, JSP, Cold Fusion, ASP, Perl, Python, etc. We have a brand new WAP protocol poised to revolutionize the concept of a workspace. As an educator who prepares web developers, I cringe as this cowardly new world scared of another Linus Torvalds in which my students will have very few choices of employment. Only the already bankrolled will survive and they will become corporate slaves at vampire companies like Microsoft where they are told any investments outside of company stock is frowned upon (and they really are not even supposed to breed outside of "campus"). While I do not have a viable alternative, I still fail to see why such patents even need to exist. If it is to rescue dying dot coms, then maybe we should step back and look at what happened when the auto industry hit the skids, did they propose to patent the highways? I think not.
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 20:02:13 UTC