No RAND licensing

RF licensing seems to be a good attempt to clarify patent issues in W3C standards. The reasons for RAND licensing are not sound. If a patented technology is superior, it will win out in the marketplace without viable RF alternatives, and achieve the effect of standards by being de facto standards. W3C endorsement doesn't add value in this case.

If patented technology is not superior, why does W3C want to pick winners? How does the public benefit?

RAND licensing creates barrier of entry for smaller, entrepreneural players. Innovation is best when companies have to innovate to survive in the market. For example, Microsoft is not serious about Internet until Netscape threatened to become a dominant player; all Microsoft's internet innovations happened after Pearl Harbor Day. The internet standards has been extremely innovative without RAND licensing patents. There is no reason to believe RAND licensing will benefit the public in W3C standards. The burden of proof is on the Working Group to show substantial benefits by allowing RAND licensing.

Alan C. Chiu
former software developer at Netscape Communications