- From: Steven Healey <sphealey@worldnet.att.net>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 21:19:55 -0500
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From: Steven P. Healey sphealey@worldnet.att.net ============================================================================= I. Policy concerning patents In it's Response to Public Comments [on RAND], W3C states W3C takes no position on the public policy questions surrounding software patents. Isn't that statement at best naive? The Internet and Web were originally designed with the idea of free and open communication. Today, there are powerful forces that would like to see open communication closed down and the Web turned over entirely to commercial pursuits. If a RAND policy is adopted for Web standards, won't the next move by those commercial entities be to create as many proprietary standards as possible and force them on the entire Web community (using hammers such as DMCA), like it or not? The missing piece of the puzzle is that to "not have a policy on software patents" is in fact to have a policy - just as to not make a decision is to make a decision. Combining "no patent policy" with a RAND (or UFO) policy for standards is essentially to take the position that the Web should become the property of those who can pay the most to control the standards and legal processes. This may be bad (which is my personal opinion); it may be good (after all, this is how most of the technical world works). But it should be discussed explicitly. II. W3C vs. Existing Standards Bodies In its Response to Public Comments, W3C made the following statement: 4. Is RAND licensing common for bodies like W3C? Yes. A RAND license is common among standards organizations. One of the strongest criticisms of organizations such as ISO and ITU is that they charge exorbitant fees to even read, much less implement, their standards. Some government entities have even gone so far as to incorporate proprietary standards into laws, such that individuals have to right to read the laws that they can be jailed for violating (e.g. Veeck vs. City of Austin). The Web and Internet have always been unique in having their standards freely available for review and implementation. Is it a good thing for W3C to seek to emulate the "closed source" standards bodies? III. W3C Response to Public Comment W3C's initial response to public comments on RAND could be construed as an attempt to control the debate via a "good bill/bad bill" strategy. That is, the current status quo is for the Web to be based on open, non-proprietary standards. A proposal is mooted to implement a RAND (or UFO) policy for new Web standards. Critics of this policy are then told that they must "be constructive" in their criticism of the UFO policy, as the choice is between a very onerous UFO policy and one which, having been "constructively criticized", is only slightly less onerous. The choice of retaining or strengthening the status quo (no patented technology in Web standards) is taken off the table before the debate begins. I am sure that this is not the intention of the W3C patent working group. However, the issue of whether or not a patent policy is acceptable to the Web community needs to be explicitly debated before a UFO policy is mooted, not after. Sincerely, Steven P. Healey St. Louis, Missouri USA
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 22:17:29 UTC