- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:33:54 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Throughout the history of mankind since we shifted from hunter-gatherer to agriculturists it became inviolately understood that a certain amount of the crop was put aside as seed for the next crop. The rule against eating the seed corn - even if you thought you were very hungry) was central to the survival and flourishing of our species. The W3C was started by a "gift" of incredible proportions: CERN and Tim Berners-Lee donated what turned out to be the largest single financial jackpot in history. Because the Web was free, hundreds of companies flourished and vast fortunes were amassed. The principle was simple: if you work on the standards (including donating your time/patents/IPR) *everyone* was not only connected to *everything* but we all prospered beyond anything conceived of in the past. The process for those of us who work on these matters, whether languages, guidelines, or other technologies involves going into a Working Group with no hidden agendas, no expectation of other compensation than the improvement of the whole project. Although on occasion there have been instances of "submarine claims" [hey, I thought of (patented/published/copyrighted) that in 19xx] with attendant ill feelings and even some legal wrangles, on the whole it's worked pretty well. Now one segment of the membership, with no participation by "the public", has decided to change all that. The idea that there is a body of standards is very similar to the idea that there is commonality of "property rights" thereto - just like the seed corn. Trying to establish who thought of what and when and how important their contribution was is clearly extremely divisive. Particularly, when there is some idea of compensation based on the artifice of "intellectual property rights" which are only valid on parts of the planet. All of this stuff dates back to very long established ideas: from Aristotle's "Categories" through SGML and its precursors. Although clever attorneys can gerrymander little provinces of patentability, we all know that all that is bull shit. Working out the minutiae of this stuff is hard work that can only be accomplished by co-operation, not competition. If anyone seriously believes that the "prior art" for everything we do hasn't been clearly established for decades, they are living delusionally. There can only be one principal which will enable those of us who contribute our not inconsiderable talents to this effort to continue and that is the statement we make coming into a Working Group: "I believe that I have no IPR claims that pertain to the work I'm about to engage in and further that any such claims will not be made relating to any of the product of this WG". If anyone (or any misguided corporation) thinks they *own* some "intellectual property" then they'd better speak up and we'll work right around it. Just as whenever one has a "hit song" or profitable film there are parasites in society who bring suit using fatuous claims of "invention", so we must be prepared to answer all such claims, but that is an inevitability of little consequence compared to the problems of acknowledging such claims in advance. Further, the deliberations of this Working Group were shamefully carried out in secrecy with no public mailing list and no participation by public entities. This cannot be further tolerated. -- Love. EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 18:30:24 UTC