- From: Claire Hitchfield <clairehi@world-net.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:31:22 +1300
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Dear W3C Members, The Internet and the World Wide Web are an integral part of millions of ordinary citizens of the world's lives today. Providing previously unimagined opportunities for them to network, to collaborate, to communicate. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to research, to develop, to innovate. However innocuous and beneficial the Reasonable and Non-discriminatory License appears, I believe that it is not appropriate to the spirit of the Web. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the propriety of issuing patents for software, it is clear that patents will continue to be applied for, and continue to be issued. The W3C should take a strong stand against the use or adoption of any patented technology as a Web standard, unless such patents are guaranteed to be and remain royalty-free, for use by all. Such a stand will maintain the open nature of the Web, while allowing the participants to continue to innovate and the lawyers to continue to protect their employers' assets. At the same time, it will enable independent developers to continue expanding the variety of interoperable implementations without the threat of legal action. Remember the text of your own Member Agreement: "[W3C] ...agree to grant and hereby grant to Member a non-exclusive royalty-free, irrevocable, right and license to use, reproduce, modify, translate, distribute, publicly display and publicly perform all computer software and documentation described in Section 7 (b) throughout the world..." We applaud the addition of patent disclosure requirements to the processes by which open standards are crafted. We are, however, extremely curious as to what remedies the W3C policy offers in the case of a breach of good faith by one of its Members. As the policy stands, there are none, and we are to take it on faith that not only will Members disclose patents and applications they may not have had a hand in submitting, but if they do not, the Working Group will be disbanded and the technology abandoned in its current form. This unacceptably weak link in the policy essentially allows any Member to sabotage any W3C technology simply by filing for a patent application. We suggest that any Member found in violation of the disclosure clauses of the policy be barred from participation in or communication with the other Members of the various W3C Working Groups for a period of no less than two years. This should extend not only to the individual representative, but to all representatives of any Member determined to be in bad faith, whether currently involved in Working Groups or not. Such violators should also be required to abandon all claims to RAND licensing for the technology in question, and instead make the technology royalty-free as a demonstration of their commitment to open standards and fair and open cooperation. We thank you for opening this process up to public comment, and for extending the comment period (however briefly) so that we could actually read the proposed policy and reply. Let's make sure that the same spirit of openness and receptivity to the audience you claim to serve is not threatened again. We understand that the "inherently difficult twists and turns of some of the patent licensing language" may have led us into error with respect to our interpretation of the policy. If so, please either do your best to explain the twists or to remove them altogether. We are counting on W3C to continue "leading the Web to its full potential." Finally, it is with trepidation we have sadly noted that the majority of the Patent Policy Draft authors are working with large corporates which stand to gain considerably from the breakdown of the open nature of the Web. Please reconsider. Yours sincerely, Claire Hitchfield Fremy Consulting Group
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 06:23:16 UTC