- From: Doug Dingus <doug@acuityinc.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:33:05 -0700
- To: "'www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org'" <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Everyone, I am compelled to write you all today about your recent efforts toward a new Patent Policy Framework which could allow W3C members to charge royalty fees for technologies included in web standards. In particular, I object to the inclusion of a "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing option in the proposed policy. As the policy draft is currently written, the RAND clauses do discriminate against Open Source developers. RAND style licensing also discriminates against those who, in the future, would participate in the development of new and possibly innovative technology. We need Open Source to be able to continue to develop and mature. It is an effective check against the harm a closed propriatary internet will do to this industry and its end-users. The standards for the internet of today provide only the basic infrstructure needed for communication and development of the future. Its open nature has served us well. This should not change as we move into the future. Why would we? What we have now works well, the only ones who benefit from patent encumbered standards are those who own the patents! The rest of us just stand to lose with each RAND agreement made. There are a lot of interests right now looking to mold the internet into something that benefits them. This RAND licensing proposal is one of the tools that they intend to use toward that goal. While realizing new technology development is important for the long term economic success of the internet, we also must remember who the internet serves and how it was built in the first place. Without Open Standards supported by Open Source code, many of these same interests looking to own their piece of the internet, would have little or nothing to contribute to a closed commercial-only internet. Innovation is also needed to drive the industry forward with new products, services and education. Licensing key technologies, then defining them as being standard does two unhealthy things. First it assigns control of said technology to those who own it. Secondly it dictates that the rest of us must use it regardless of its actual merit. These two effects work to stifle innovation, not promote it. Given the current law-making trend, it is not much of a stretch to say that it would be illegal in many places in the world to even try to develop or discuss an improved compatable alternative. Given these observations, what then is driving the owner of the standard to improve, or at a minimum serve its users interests? Will they do it for our (the internet community as a whole) benefit, or for theirs? It is also again not too much of a stretch to imagine a situation in the near future that involves two companies, one with the entrenced standard, and the other with a new standard that depends on the entrenched one (because of the patents.) If the new standard is disruptive to the revenue generated by the existing one, what incentive does the owner of the entrenched standard have to modify or otherwise allow the development of the new one? What about platform issues? OSS development is responsible for a lot of cross-platform development that enables products and services to reach almost anyone regardless of their choice of computing platform. Will owners of patent encumbered standards support OSS ports to other platforms and operating systems? Will they still do it if one of those alternatives becomes a threat to their revenue? Rather than invite this tangled legal mess (which in and of itself is discriminatory toward OSS development) into the internet, we should keep it open and simple where all parties involved can participate as users or developers or both. Patent encumbered standards belong with products that their owners can market to end-users based on their merits, not their requirements as "standards". Any other solution is not practical in the longer term because there will always be a conflict of interest between the owners of the exising standards and those who will innovate. This conflict will not serve the future users of the internet anywhere near as well as the competition in an open Internet would. I will support any Open Standard that is proposed in the future at the expense of patent encumbered ones, even if it costs a little more for me to do so. Keep patents off the web (please). --We don't need the hassle. Doug Dingus Applications Engineer / Trainer Acuity Inc. Portland, Oregon (503)-221-6995x112
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 16:41:20 UTC