- From: Mike Brodbelt <m.brodbelt@acu.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:45:57 +0100
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I have only recently (as, apparently have many others) become aware of the W3C intentions with regard to its future patent policy. While I have no argument with the right of a company to profit from its intellectual property assets, I strongly oppose the W3C's stated intentions to permit RAND licensing for W3C standards. The first stated goal of the W3C is the provision of "Universal Access". I cannot understand how such a laudable goal could possible be served by permitting RAND licenses on IP required to implement W3C standards. This would immediately reduce access to those who could afford the licensing fees. The web has, since it's inception been a communications medium open to all. To permit it to devolve into yet another piece of corporate owned real-estate would be tantamount to criminal. Permitting RAND licenses would serve only to freeze out implementors who cannot or will not license essential technology. The Open Source movement, historically the technology that has built the web, would suffer enormous harm from this, as many Open Source projects cannot use licensed technology, by their very nature. I would ask that the W3C places at least the following absolute requirements on members of Working Groups:- 1/ Contributors to the W3C standards process must be compelled to disclose Intellectual Property claims that may impinge on standards that result from that process, with particular reference to patents. 2/ It should be a requirement of participation that patent holders clarify their position as to whether disclosed patents are "essential technology" for implementations based on any W3C recommendation or standard. Apple's current silence as to whether their patent represents essential technology for implmentations of SVG is completely unacceptable. 3/ It should be possible for any company or person to freely access the W3C's specification of their technology standards, and, furthermore, they should be able to impelement these standards in the certain knowledge that they require no additional permission to do so. To that end, any "essential technology" necessary for implementation of a W3C standard must, if patented, be available on Royalty Free terms. The RAND terms dicussed are clearly unacceptable, precluding as they do, the development of Open Source implementations of W3C standards. The removal of support for the GIF image format from many open source toolkits should be ample evidence that non royalty-free licenses effectively prevent open source implementations. Open standards require that open implementations be possible, and RAND licensing would prevent this. Participation in the W3C must, when all is said and done, be about the promotion of open standards for an open web. As such, W3C members should be happy to provide royalty free licenses for patented technology included in W3C standards, in support of the open standards needed for the growth of the World Wide Web. To provide licenses on anything less than RF terms is a clear impediment to the implementation and adoption of the standards the W3C exists to promote. If the W3C presses forward with the proposed RAND conditions, I will be joining the growing group calling for the Open Source community to fork the standards, and press for non patent-encumbered alterntives to be adopted instead of W3C standards. I sincerely hope the necessity for this does not come about. The W3C has always stood for openness and universal access - please do not now change this to the detriment of all web users. Mike Brodbelt.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 09:48:03 UTC