- From: David Balch <david@balch.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:19:24 +0100
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Thank you, W3C, for extending the comment period on this draft, I would not have been able to contribute if you had not. My view is that standards should continue to be unencumbered by patents, for the reasons voiced by many and nicely summarised at http://www.lisa.org/2001/rand/rand.html . Others can debate those arguments better than I. I have my doubts on the merit of the W3C giving apparent endorsments to patents by their inclusion in standards (I believe that will be the general perception), but am unfamiliar with the depths of the patents/standards issues (e.g. how often do patents arise in web standards?) - so I suggest a system that permits patent encumbered standards as a last resort. Both the majority of contributions to this list and W3C itself have stated preference for RF standards, so RF should be the initial mode of all WGs. Standards should have freedom from patents as a highly desirable trait, so every opportunity to use unencumbered technologies should be presented and used. When a contribution that involves patents is offered it must be disclosed as suggested, but also announced in a manner to provide opportunity for W3C members and the _community_ to find an alternative. The possibility of a Web Schism suggests that there must be enough talented and concerned parties to formulate an alternative to any patented technologies contributed to a standard. Each WG with a contribution that involves patents can alert the community of the patent through a general mailing list (say "patent-announce@w3.org") describing which issues and parties are involved. More detail and schedules would be described in webpages. Another mailing list would be created for discussion and resolution of the patent issues in that WG. Interested parties would subscribe to the patent-announce@w3.org list, and keep the community aware of potential patents in standards. If the community is interested and can find alternatives to the patented technologies, then they should be used. If there is no alternative, or the community is not interested in the standard then the patented technology would have to be used. (I imagine RF should be required as I don't see how RAND could not discriminate against someone when applied to GNU.) This scheme would involve the community more in the development of standards, which can only be a good thing, especially considering the schism alternatives. However, I do not know how well it would fit in with the current membership system. Hoping for a effective resolution, David Balch.
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 12:21:26 UTC