www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org from October 2001 by author

!PUBLICIDAD�

• ACTIVADORES BIOL�GICOS PARA ELIMINAR OLORES. �PUBLICIDAD! (Friday, 12 October)

0liv

• NO, NO, NO! (Friday, 26 October)

1 1

• RAND RFPC (Friday, 5 October)

111netcon@ieg.com.br

• Amplie suas vendas (Wednesday, 31 October)

3L@xwinds.com

• AGAINST RAND policy (Saturday, 6 October)

89vkimiilgoseca@britanicainternet.net

• Check Out the Best Prices for Your Toner Cartridges (Wednesday, 3 October)

944411@yahoo.com

• Cadastro (Thursday, 11 October)

A. Khan

• Adoption of RAND license (Monday, 1 October)

A.J. Madu

• Rand Policy (Saturday, 6 October)

Aaron Carr

• Public Comments (Thursday, 4 October)

Aaron Dragushan

• Don't sell out guys... (Monday, 1 October)

Aaron Swenson

• RAND Policy Will Destroy The Internet (Monday, 8 October)

Abe Milde

• Thank You (Tuesday, 2 October)

acborges@netcabo.pt

• We have to ACT (Friday, 5 October)

Adam Hull

• A Patent is not a standard. Standards are Open. Patents are not. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Adam Kightley

• concerns from Poland (Friday, 5 October)

Adam Warner

• Re: Tim Berners-Lee [was: SVG ad inf.] (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: The Burden of Proof (Tuesday, 2 October)
• The Burden of Proof (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Is the RF license GPL-compatible? (Monday, 1 October)

Adrian Hesketh

• Another boring standard letter which I copied and pasted off the EFF site. (Tuesday, 16 October)

Adrian Tymes

• "Non-discriminatory" commercial licenses impossible (Monday, 8 October)

adulty@nozo.kk.jp

• 私生活観察マニュアルとは・・・ (Friday, 26 October)

Afonso Fernandez Nogueira

• Breaking off (Saturday, 6 October)

Ahmad Sofyan

• No to RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

aitken@echo-on.net

• patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Ajeet P Velankar

• Freedom is essential for Innovation (Thursday, 11 October)

Al Johnson

• Comments (Sunday, 7 October)

al.gaspar@lrn.va.gov

• RAND Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Alan Bol

• no RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

Alan Chiu

• No RAND licensing (Monday, 8 October)

Alan Cox

• W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Sunday, 30 September)

Alan Hartley-Smith

• The thin end of the wedge? (Thursday, 4 October)

Alan Langford

• patent-response (Tuesday, 2 October)

Alan Mitchell Durham

• Standards and patents (Thursday, 4 October)

Alan Shalloway

• RAND policy of W3C (Wednesday, 3 October)

Alan Truesdale

• Re: Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Alan Wexelblat

• Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Alan Woodland

• Patents (Friday, 5 October)

alan.hanna@us.datex-ohmeda.com

• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Thursday, 4 October)

Alek Lynge

• Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] (Wednesday, 10 October)

Alex Bischoff

• Comments on Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Alex Dark

• Patent Policy Comment/Remarks (Tuesday, 2 October)

Alex Hogarth

• RAND Proposals (Thursday, 11 October)

Alex Morales

• RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Alex Simons

• RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Alexander Falk

• W3C Patent Policy - can we please rename the W3C to USW2C! (Tuesday, 2 October)

Alexander List

• No software patents through the back door (Thursday, 4 October)

Alexander Nakhimovsky

• against RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Alexander Sirotkin

• web standards should NOT be patented ! (Saturday, 13 October)

Alexander Stohr

• RAND direction proposal (Wednesday, 10 October)

Alexandre Dulaunoy

• RAND licensing and Free Software (Sunday, 7 October)

Alexandre Vitrac

• Legal infrastructure in a W3C recommendation ? (Thursday, 4 October)

Alice Corbin

• comments (Monday, 8 October)

Alik Widge

• RAND Licensing Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Alisdair Odd

• Patent policy comment (Thursday, 11 October)

Alison Lister

• After all your hard work? (Friday, 5 October)

Allan Oepping

• Support only patent-free technology (Friday, 5 October)

allen lackey

• don't think so (Saturday, 13 October)

Allen Small

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Thursday, 4 October)

Allen Smith

• Royalty-free patents only, please (Thursday, 11 October)

alyson kittle

• patentpolicy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Ami Ganguli

• Patent policy comment (Tuesday, 2 October)

Amit Sahai

• Opposition to RAND Patent Policy (Friday, 12 October)

Amy Dawson

• RAND fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Anant Sahai

• RF-only is much better (Friday, 12 October)

Anasil

• Anasil - software network analyzer (Thursday, 11 October)

Anders

• Patents (Tuesday, 16 October)

Andrea Montefusco

• RAND license: no grazie (Friday, 5 October)

Andreas Huennebeck

• Comment to RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Andreas Knapp

• The web wouldent be the same (Wednesday, 3 October)

Andres Arroyave

• Personal request (Tuesday, 2 October)

Andrew Fowler

• Comments on Patent Policy Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Andrew Hagen

• why the W3C should reject RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Andrew Meredith

• Patent Policy Comment (Monday, 8 October)

Andrew Oliver

• http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ (Tuesday, 2 October)

Andrew Tridgell

• patents & standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Andrey Golokhvastov

• Science-based design and development (Monday, 15 October)

Andy Chase

• RE: W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Andy Collier

• Do not allow patent bound standards! (Sunday, 30 September)

Andy Macdonald

• Comments (Thursday, 4 October)

Andy Oram

• Risks to content (digital rights management) in proposed framework (Wednesday, 10 October)

Angelos D. Keromytis

• comments on W3C's Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Anna

• Proposed Patent Policy - The Antithesis of W3C (Monday, 1 October)

Anna Au

• RAND Will Kill Open Source (Wednesday, 3 October)

Anne E. Jablinske

• Re: Patent Policy Framework draft (Tuesday, 9 October)

Anoop Sarkar

• standard vs. patent (Thursday, 4 October)

Anthony W. Youngman

• Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framew ork Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Anthony Watson

• RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Antonio Arauzo

• Re: Summary of 15-17 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Face-to-Face meeting available (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: I don't like it (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: Patents (Wednesday, 17 October)

Antonio Arauzo Azofra

• Fees on standars, Patents on standars -> BAD IDEA (Thursday, 4 October)

Antonio Rafael Dias Teixeira

• RAND-modified: Can a clause o ETERNAL waiving of licensing fees for open-source implementations for RAND? (Tuesday, 2 October)

apocketfullofeuros

• Nanotechnology Research funding (Monday, 1 October)

April Neibarger II

• uh hmmm (Wednesday, 3 October)

Arlana

• Centro de Rehabilitaci�n mental y tratamiento de adicciones. (Saturday, 20 October)

arle lommel

• Six issues (Monday, 8 October)

Arlen A. Greer

• Application Developer (Thursday, 4 October)

Armstrong.Steven

• Patent Policies (Tuesday, 2 October)

Arnaud Vaneste

• Disagree with RAND license (Monday, 8 October)
• RAND Licence (Friday, 5 October)

Arthur Schneider

• You guys must be nuts! (Tuesday, 2 October)

Arto Teräs

• RAND licencing would lead to incompatibility problems (Saturday, 6 October)

Artur Grabowski

• Too many lawyers, not enough common sense. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Asle Benoni

• W3C standards should be free (Tuesday, 9 October)

astajko1@tampabay.rr.com

• Entirely Against Patent Policy... (Tuesday, 2 October)

Atabey Kaygun

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

August Zajonc

• RAND Comments (Friday, 12 October)

Austin Brooks

• patent policy framework draft (Wednesday, 10 October)

Austin Gonyou

• RE: Royalty Based Standards (Monday, 1 October)

B.J. Herbison

• Don't allow standards based on RAND Licenses (Sunday, 7 October)

Baba Kofi Weusijana

• Recent Patent Policy Framework Draft (Sunday, 14 October)

bac@mailops.com

• Regarding the proposed RAND patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

bal_cyberdude@gmx.net

• license fees will never be non-discriminatory (Thursday, 4 October)

barbapapa

• image damage, legitimacy of w3c endangered (Saturday, 13 October)

Barbara Pratt

• Rand licensing (Saturday, 6 October)

Barry Coward

• Patents? (Tuesday, 2 October)

Bas Burger

• Latest patent drafts (Thursday, 4 October)

Bea Fontaine

• Since when is the web for sale? (Wednesday, 10 October)

BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)

• Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards (Sunday, 14 October)
• Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards (Thursday, 11 October)
• Recall: Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards (Thursday, 11 October)
• Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards (Thursday, 11 October)

BEN BARRAZA

• Comment (Monday, 8 October)

Ben Henick

• An extended comment on this Web-patent farce (Monday, 1 October)

Ben van 't Ende

• patent policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Ben Wrighton - Wapdesign

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 10 October)

Benjamin Edwards

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

Benjamin Watkins

• Selling out to special interests on Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Beretta Paolo

• Royalty free ?!? (Thursday, 4 October)

Bermuda Seek

• New Friends From Bermuda!? (Wednesday, 10 October)

Bernard.Snyers@ionicsoft.com

• RF and RAND standard policy (Monday, 1 October)

Bert Veldhuizen

• FEES (Thursday, 4 October)

Bill Bland

• Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Bill Evans

• Don't do it. (Monday, 8 October)

bill francis

• w3c (Wednesday, 3 October)

Bill Gallagher

• Patents violate founding principle of w3.org (Friday, 5 October)

Bill Gunn

• RAND Licensing is Counterproductive (Tuesday, 9 October)

Bill Major

• Will The W3C Destroy The Web? (Friday, 5 October)

Bill Taylor

• It's too early to change our model (Monday, 1 October)

bill wirt

• reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products (Wednesday, 3 October)

Bill Zaumen

• Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework (Tuesday, 9 October)

bink

• Vote no on rolaties (Monday, 8 October)

bitleech@gmx.de

• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Wednesday, 3 October)
• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Wednesday, 3 October)

Bjoern Kriews

• plea against RAND patents in W3C standards (Sunday, 7 October)

Blake Courtney

• W3C - Self examination time! (Wednesday, 24 October)

BlakGard@aol.com

• W3C Patent Policy/RAND Licensing Agreement (Friday, 5 October)

blumoda@tiscalinet.it

• Iper1 per l'e-commerce (Thursday, 11 October)

Bob

• NO to RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)
• SAME! RAND clearly wrong for standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Bob Bushman

• RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory (Tuesday, 2 October)

Bob Caron

• do not tax the Web (Wednesday, 3 October)

Bob Dewey

• http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ (Wednesday, 31 October)

Bob Evans

• Patent Policy disapproval (Friday, 5 October)

Bob Glover

• Just Say No to RAND Licensing (Friday, 5 October)

Bob Goates

• W3C Patent Policy Framework working draft (Monday, 8 October)

Bob Hayes

• Re: Patent licensing decision (Sunday, 7 October)

Bob Hogan

• RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

Bob McDonald

• Patent Policy comments (Tuesday, 9 October)

Bobgmoss@aol.com

• Proposed Patent Royalty Policy for WWW (Tuesday, 9 October)

BODRATO Stefano

• As suggested in the GNU WEB site.. (Tuesday, 16 October)

bordcon@earthlink.net

• RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

boudha@abacom.com

• Start a home business (Friday, 19 October)

Bourzeix, Stephane

• No (Thursday, 4 October)

Bovy, Stephen

• Patents For What Purpose ???? (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Liars and Hypocrites (Tuesday, 2 October)

Brad Coburn

• RAND Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Brad Herman

• The Social/Political Role of the W3C (Friday, 12 October)

Braddock Gaskill

• Open Source Public Feedback on RAND licenses (Tuesday, 2 October)

Bradley M. Kuhn

• Concerned about patent policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Branden Robinson

• Re: failure to communicate (Tuesday, 2 October)

Brent J. Nordquist

• Don't add RAND licensing to the W3C process (Friday, 5 October)

Brent Michalski

• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Brett Merkey

• One little voice against (Thursday, 11 October)

Brian Carpenter

• Thanks but no thanks. (Friday, 5 October)

Brian Carroll

• royalties for web standards? no ! (Friday, 5 October)

Brian Clancey

• Allowing patented software into standards (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Opposed to inclusion of patents in standards (Thursday, 4 October)

Brian Cort

• lawyers & epitaphs (Tuesday, 2 October)

Brian Fletcher

• Fwd: Play a hilarious prank call (Sunday, 21 October)

Brian K. Hill

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Brian Powell

• Patent Policies... (Saturday, 6 October)

Brock Frazier

• Reject the Patent Policy Framework. (Friday, 12 October)

Brock Organ

• patent policy comment (Thursday, 4 October)

Brooklyn Linux Solutions

• Re: [fairuse-discuss] Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Thursday, 4 October)

Bruce Heerssen

• Incorporating proprietary formats in any recommendation is a BAD idea! (Thursday, 4 October)

Bruce J. Pezzlo

• Against RAND and Patent Policy Framework working draft (Monday, 1 October)

Bruce Lunde

• Subject: "NO" TO RAND LICENSING (Wednesday, 10 October)

Bruce Perens

• RF only, please. (Monday, 1 October)

Bruce Williams

• Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF (Tuesday, 2 October)

Bruno VERNAY

• Patents will kill the standards (Friday, 5 October)

Bryan - ECS Inc.

• Patent Comments (Wednesday, 3 October)

Bryan Dougherty

• patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Bryan McCormick

• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Bryan Montford

• RAND objection (Tuesday, 9 October)

bryancox2

• My view of the new standard that some jerks are trying to force on the rest of us (Wednesday, 3 October)

Bryce Nesbitt

• Data interchange standards should be patent free (at least w3c recommended ones) (Monday, 1 October)

Bullard, Claude L (Len)

• RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? (Tuesday, 2 October)
• RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents] (Tuesday, 2 October)

butlerboys@cwctv.net

• triggerhappytv (Sunday, 14 October)

bwg

• bad idea (Monday, 8 October)

C. B. Yarling

• Cease & Desist (Sunday, 7 October)

Cameron Fry

• No!! RAND! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Cameron Miller

• RAND is bad. You folks are Liars. Yes, I read it. Comments below. (Thursday, 4 October)

Carl Beehler

• Re:%20IETF%20Patent%20Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Carl Douglas

• No to RAND licensing (Wednesday, 10 October)

Carlos Méndez

• Go for it (Thursday, 4 October)

Carmine Monte

• stop it RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Carol

• Stop it Stop it! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Carol Bean

• Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative (Sunday, 7 October)

Carolyn Hillman

• Do not cater to the large corporations (Monday, 8 October)

Cartier, Philip

• Patents and Standards (Wednesday, 3 October)

Case, Scott

• RAND will fragment the web (Friday, 5 October)

Cathy Gage

• Comments on patent Policy (Tuesday, 9 October)

cb105

• Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 26 October)

cbma

• In Response To Proposed Patent Policy (Tuesday, 9 October)

ccooke@indigo.ie

• Re: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org (Wednesday, 10 October)

Cedric Degea

• Patent policy draft: DNAR? (Friday, 5 October)

Ceki Gülcü

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 1 October)

cfb@sol.usc.edu

• RAND (Tuesday, 9 October)

cfkaran2@eos.ncsu.edu

• Re: Web page (Monday, 1 October)

cglasser@dotcast.com

• I stand in opposition to RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

Chad K. Bisk

• say no to RAND licensing (Friday, 5 October)
• default to RF instead of RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Charles Cazabon

• "Non-discriminatory" patents will kill the web (Tuesday, 2 October)

Charles Esson

• Think about our great great grand children. (Thursday, 4 October)
• RIP W3 (Monday, 1 October)

Charles Geyer

• public comment (Sunday, 7 October)

Charles Hixson

• Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Charles J. Lingo

• patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Charles McCray

• destruction of the web... (Wednesday, 3 October)

charles mcknight

• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Charles McPhate

• No to patents (Friday, 5 October)

Charles Stewart

• Contribution to W3C consultation (Thursday, 11 October)

CharlesAdams14@aol.com

• Your Technology Sucks! (Thursday, 4 October)
• :( (Thursday, 4 October)

Charlie Brooks

• Patents will undermine useability (Friday, 5 October)

cheeser@ionet.net

• patent policy (Thursday, 4 October)

Cheryl Flinn

• Proposed Changes in W3C patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

chgo9127@rcnchicago.com

• W3C Patent Policy (Thursday, 4 October)

Chip & Debby Piller

• keep standards free and open (Thursday, 4 October)

Chip Mefford

• Just say no (Wednesday, 10 October)

ChnlSrfr@aol.com

• Stop the RAND Fees! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Chris Brand

• Patents and the WWW (Thursday, 4 October)

Chris Geanious

• Please Reject the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Thursday, 4 October)

Chris Howells

• Shocked (Thursday, 4 October)

Chris Lilley

• Re: A query about RF (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: A query about RF (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND ->DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Saturday, 6 October)
• Re: SVG ad inf. (Saturday, 6 October)
• Re: SVG ad inf. (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: public opinion on W3C (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: SVG (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: public opinion on W3C (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Thursday, 4 October)
• Concerns over aspects of PPF (Monday, 1 October)

Chris Pollard, CRC

• Don't be insane! (Thursday, 4 October)

Chris Rimmer

• The Web is not just for business (Thursday, 11 October)

Chris Worley

• Re: RF > RAMMED ... sorry, I screwed up a link... (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest (Tuesday, 2 October)

chris.gamble@CPBINC.com

• Patented standards are not standards. (Monday, 8 October)

Chriss@incorruptible.com

• Earn $50,000 or more in 90 days (Sunday, 14 October)

Christian Schaller

• Allowing Patents on W3C standards will make the w3c redundant (Saturday, 6 October)

Christoph Weber

• W3C patent policy (Friday, 5 October)

Christopher Blizzard

• Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Wednesday, 10 October)

Christopher Doris

• you guys are crazy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Christopher M. Strehl

• W3C.....Follow The Money... (Wednesday, 3 October)

Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org

• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 8 October)

chtodd@core.com

• patents in W3C standards (Friday, 5 October)

Chuck Adams

• "forked" standards base (Tuesday, 2 October)

chuck weinberger

• Re: What is "reasonable" anyway? (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND ->DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: Conern of the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty fees" (Saturday, 6 October)
• Advice from a Modem War Survivor (Saturday, 6 October)

cimarron@taylors.org

• w3c patent policy changes (Monday, 1 October)

Claire Hitchfield

• W3C Patent Policy (Thursday, 11 October)

Claude Zervas

• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Sunday, 7 October)
• Well, its been fun... (Saturday, 6 October)

Claudia Evers

• Kees heeft mijn naaktfotos op fotovanmijnex.nl gezet! (Thursday, 4 October)
• Kees heeft mijn naaktfotos op fotovanmijnex.nl gezet! (Thursday, 4 October)

Clifford Satlow

• Patent Policy (Sunday, 7 October)

Cliffyaw@aol.com

• W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Wednesday, 3 October)

cmorgan@aracnet.com

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 4 October)

Cole Thompson

• This developer strongly opposes "RAND" proposal (Thursday, 4 October)

comercial

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 31 October)

ComlLoans@aol.com

• RAND fees (Thursday, 4 October)

Computerised Prank Calls

• Play a hilarious prank call (Wednesday, 24 October)

Con Zymaris

• Cybersource vehemently opposes the W3C Patent Policy Framework proposal (Friday, 5 October)

Cory Shubert

• No, no no (Tuesday, 9 October)

Court Demas

• patents (Friday, 5 October)

CoyoteinCA@netscape.net

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 8 October)

CPausheek@aol.com

• another vote against implementing RAND licensing procedures (Saturday, 6 October)

craig

• Had to happen sooner or later (Thursday, 4 October)

CRAIG FREEMAN

• RAND FEES ARE ROBBERY (Wednesday, 3 October)

Craig Saila

• Proposed Patent Policy Framework (Tuesday, 2 October)

credit@new-credit-report.com

• Pre-Approved $5000 Platinum Credit Card ! (Friday, 26 October)

CT@braehler.com

• I am against the Proposal. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Cullen M

• WC3 Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Curt Wuollet

• RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

Curtis Hawthorne

• Patent Policy Working Group (Saturday, 6 October)

Curtis Weyant

• RAND Definition (Friday, 5 October)

Cynthia Jeness

• Re: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ (Tuesday, 2 October)

D J Richert

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

D. Jeff Dionne

• open standards. (Thursday, 4 October)

D. Tweed

• Use of `RAND' patents (Thursday, 11 October)

Daisy Williams

• NO NO NO! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Damien Danneels

• Patents will break Internet (Monday, 1 October)

Dan Devine

• RAND patents (Friday, 19 October)

Dan Howard

• RAND (Sunday, 7 October)

Dan Mordan

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Dan Phiffer

• Not a good idea (Tuesday, 9 October)

Dan Stromberg

• keep royalties out of the web (Thursday, 4 October)

Daniel Barkalow

• Reasonable license fees for reference and free implementations (Tuesday, 2 October)

Daniel Blum

• NO (Wednesday, 3 October)

Daniel G. Linder

• Vote agains the "RAND" policy. (Friday, 5 October)

Daniel Hartmeier

• Resist RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Daniel Hellerstein

• Re: "forked" standards base (Wednesday, 3 October)

Daniel J. Weitzner

• Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Sunday, 14 October)
• Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Sunday, 14 October)
• Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: The Burden of Proof (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: W3C patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: W3C Patent Policy Framework Proposal (Monday, 1 October)

Daniel Joyce

• Royalty fees, patents, and the web. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Daniel LaBell

• Regarding recent Patent Policy Framework draft (Wednesday, 10 October)

Daniel Phillips

• Re: Summary of 15-17 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Face-to-Face meeting available (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" (Friday, 26 October)
• [OT] Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Friday, 12 October)
• Last day of comments, nothing changed (Thursday, 11 October)
• Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: RAND & W3C Standards (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: SVG ad inf. (Saturday, 6 October)
• Re: SVG ad inf. (Saturday, 6 October)
• Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model. (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Learn from recent history. (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Apple's SVG patent #US5379129 (Wednesday, 3 October)
• We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Money Grubbing (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: A plot to destroy W3C (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)
• RAND already being assumed for SVG (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: W3C patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)
• [OT] Adobe patents (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Do not allow patent bound standards! (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Dear Janet@w3.org (Monday, 1 October)
• The main impetus for this may be from Microsoft (Monday, 1 October)
• Why did I have to hunt for this list? (Monday, 1 October)

Daniel Pirone

• just say no (Friday, 5 October)

Daniel Probst

• Anti-Trust Issues of RAND (Tuesday, 9 October)

daniel smith

• No Rand. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Daniel Stone

• RAND proposal - obsolescence of W3C (Tuesday, 2 October)

Daniel Upper

• Please keep ALL standards free of RAND patents (Monday, 1 October)

Daniel Webb

• patent policy (Monday, 8 October)

Daniel Weitzner

• Summary of 15-17 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Face-to-Face meeting available (Tuesday, 30 October)

danielv@netvision.net.il

• Importance of Interoperability and the effects of non RF licenses (Thursday, 4 October)

Danilo Almeida

• RAND: sounds like end of free web software, originator of WWW & W3C (Tuesday, 9 October)

Darnell McGavock

• Proposed W3C Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Darren Blaser

• RAND = BAD idea (Friday, 5 October)
• W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Monday, 1 October)

Darren Munt

• Well-intentioned but misguided ? (Wednesday, 3 October)

Darron Callender

• UK WEBCAM LIST (Thursday, 18 October)

darrylb@iprimus.com.au

• Patents Policy (Thursday, 4 October)

dat23

• Comments on Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Dave Anderson

• RAND: This is the first time I've felt bad when pondering the W3. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Dave Brasington

• Bad idea. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Dave MacKinnon

• RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Dave Reeve

• Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Thursday, 4 October)
• RAND invalidates W3C's mission (Tuesday, 2 October)

Dave Winer

• What to do about the W3C? (Friday, 5 October)

Dave_Touretzky@cs.cmu.edu

• proposed W3C patent policy (Saturday, 6 October)

Davi

• Web Patents (Tuesday, 9 October)

David

• Internet Society France against Patents (Tuesday, 2 October)
• please don't! (Monday, 1 October)
• Patent policy: RAND (Monday, 1 October)

David Andrew Michael Noelle

• Royalties are discriminatory. (Friday, 5 October)

David Balch

• Suggestions for alternative procedure (Wednesday, 10 October)

David Beckham

• No Software Patents (Monday, 1 October)

David Boosalis

• What ? are you crazy (Friday, 5 October)

David Boring

• OK Janet Daly - Let us SPELL IT OUT for you (Monday, 1 October)
• RAND Patents: A great thing <= So VERY wrong and misguided (Monday, 1 October)

David Brenneman

• RAND fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

David Brownell

• Fw: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents] (Monday, 1 October)

David C Thompson

• Patentented Standards Are Harmful (Wednesday, 3 October)

David Callele

• Patent Effects (Tuesday, 2 October)

David Collier-Brown

• Strongly disapprove (Thursday, 4 October)

David G. Durand

• Eliminate RAND option from new patent policy, only allow RF (Thursday, 4 October)

David J. Ruck

• Objection (Wednesday, 3 October)

David Jander

• RAND will either kill W3C or the internet (Monday, 8 October)

David Kimdon

• non-free patents have no place in w3c standards (Friday, 5 October)

David Laws

• Reject RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Tuesday, 2 October)

David Leslie

• Patent Policy review (Wednesday, 3 October)

David List

• Why the sudden change of mind from W3C? (Saturday, 6 October)

David Marchand

• charging for use of the web (Wednesday, 3 October)

david mills

• Think about it (Thursday, 4 October)

David Mosher

• Say NO to RAND licensing (Sunday, 7 October)

David Pendell

• Upcoming Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

David Pool

• RAND proposal (Monday, 1 October)

David Scott (Internet Marketing Expert)

• Maximum Email Profits! (Monday, 15 October)

David Smith

• Patents don't belong on the WWW (Sunday, 7 October)

David Udin

• patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

David Walker

• RAND Licensing (Friday, 5 October)

David Wheeler

• Forbid RAND, require open source compatibility; W3C mission DEMANDS it (Wednesday, 3 October)

David Woodhouse

• Request for feedback. (Thursday, 11 October)
• Proposal for modification to Member Patent Licensing Commitments. (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model. (Friday, 5 October)
• Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model. (Friday, 5 October)
• Proposal for clarification of RAND licence definition. (Thursday, 4 October)

David Wright

• No to RAND (Wednesday, 10 October)

davis

• RAND Patent Policy - Against (Monday, 8 October)

Dawn M. Burian

• HERE TODAY - GONE TOMORROW? (Wednesday, 3 October)

DBBROADCAST

• From: DBBROADCAST (Sunday, 28 October)

dean blackketter

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

Dean William Schaf

• Your RAND dreams (Thursday, 4 October)

der.hans

• keep standards open (Monday, 1 October)

derek lane

• Web standards, W3C and others. (Friday, 12 October)
• Scenarios related to PPG Proposal (Sunday, 7 October)

Derek Lewis

• RAND is a Thought Policeman's Charter (Friday, 5 October)

Derek Moore

• what (Wednesday, 3 October)

Derk

• reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products (Thursday, 4 October)

Dhruva Reddy

• Patent Policy (Monday, 8 October)

Diana Muir

• Re: OFFER FOR HELP (Tuesday, 30 October)

Dick Byrd

• Re: Comment on WC-3 Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Diego Lunetta

• The Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 8 October)

Dieter Van Uytvanck

• my comments on the Patent Policy for WWW Standards (Friday, 5 October)

Dietrich, Joseph

• Do I understand this issue? (Thursday, 4 October)

Dillow, Barrett

• Patent Policy - Standardizing patented tech only supports the cor porations (Tuesday, 2 October)

disk343@excite.com

• Mortgage Leads Available! (Thursday, 25 October)

disorder@ecosse.net

• "PATENT INSIDE" - doesnt work at all (Wednesday, 3 October)

Dmitry Borodaenko

• Free Software compatibility (Monday, 8 October)

Dominic Ringuet

• Opinion (Friday, 12 October)

Dominique Broeglin

• Just an example (Monday, 1 October)

Don

• "RAND" policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

don bright's spam buffer

• ambiguity of language (Monday, 1 October)

Don C Livingston

• Fee's (Wednesday, 3 October)

Don McCuiston

• No patents please (Tuesday, 2 October)

don@solderquik.com

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd

• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• IETF Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Donald Eastlake 3rd

• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Wednesday, 3 October)

Donald Kleyensteuber

• www Power Grab (Wednesday, 10 October)

donald.hohman@pncbank.com

• Re: NO STANDARDS WITH PATENTS (Thursday, 4 October)

DonEMitchell

• Regarding patents (Monday, 1 October)

Doug Dingus

• FW: RAND licensing proposal. (Tuesday, 9 October)

Doug Hunt

• patent inclusion in W3C standards (Thursday, 4 October)

Doug Smith

• Potential Anti-trust issues with new rulling... (Tuesday, 2 October)

Douglas Holt

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 8 October)

Douglas Page

• Protect the future before it's too late!! (Thursday, 4 October)

Douglas Stillinger

• RAND policy et. al. (Friday, 5 October)

dpytlewski@idea.net.pl

• petition (Wednesday, 10 October)

Dr E B Bettler

• RAND is the problem (Wednesday, 3 October)

Dr. David Alan Gilbert

• When is RAND fair (Tuesday, 2 October)

Dr. Mahesh S. Raisinghani

• STRONG OBJECTION TO the inclusion of RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Dr. Michael Evans

• Keep the web open and alive (Wednesday, 10 October)

dr_lenz@ziplip.co.jp

• Three substantial comments (Sunday, 7 October)
• No Subject (Sunday, 7 October)
• Three substantial comments (Sunday, 7 October)

DspitzDan@netscape.net

• [FWD: Please keep "RAND" out of W3 standards] (Friday, 5 October)

Duane Robertson

• RAND Is A Bad Idea (Friday, 5 October)

Dunn_Bill@emc.com

• Re: Policy (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Support for Open-Source (Friday, 5 October)

Dwayne C. Litzenberger

• Supporting software patents undermines credibility of W3C (Tuesday, 9 October)

Dylan Thurston

• Re: W3C patent policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

ED Summers

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

ed@alcpress.com

• Response to Public Comments on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

eddie wilson

• --- dont quite understand this (Tuesday, 9 October)

Edoardo Dezani

• Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Sunday, 14 October)

Edward Champion

• Vague definitions involve a vague future. (Friday, 12 October)

Edward Diehl

• Propposed RAND standand (Monday, 1 October)

edward mambo

• OFFER FOR HELP (Thursday, 11 October)

Edward Renaud

• patent-response (Tuesday, 9 October)

Edward Terry

• Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Effie Kolbeins

• Don't change now. (Friday, 5 October)

Egil Moeller

• Comments on the new patent-policy (Friday, 5 October)

Eivind

• Late comment on patents in W3 standards (Monday, 1 October)

Ekkard Schnedermann

• License fees (Saturday, 6 October)

El-Gayar, Omar

• Patents and standards (Friday, 12 October)

Eldon King

• Established Standards (Tuesday, 9 October)

Elliott Kirschling

• Please re-think patent policy. (Friday, 5 October)

Emery, Pat

• Patent Policy (Thursday, 4 October)

emmet obrien (BI)

• Do not do this (Wednesday, 3 October)

Enrique A. Chaparro

• Against standards incorporating 'patented' technology (Thursday, 4 October)

Eric Backus

• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Sunday, 7 October)

Eric E. Coe

• RF: It's not done until it's done (Tuesday, 2 October)

Eric Jacobsen

• RAND (Saturday, 6 October)

Eric Johnson

• Patent Policy (Sunday, 7 October)
• Feedback on the RAND policy (Thursday, 4 October)
• RAND policy objection (Thursday, 4 October)

Eric Montgomery

• w3c proposal on patents (Friday, 5 October)

Eric Norlin

• oh for god's sake (Monday, 1 October)

Eric Parusel

• One Question..... (Tuesday, 2 October)

Eric Richardson

• What is reasonable? (Friday, 5 October)

Eric Runquist

• Comments on the proposed change in patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Eric S. Raymond

• OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy (Tuesday, 9 October)

Erica Townsend

• NO to RAND licensing (Tuesday, 2 October)

Erik Beijnoff

• Definitely hurting the W3C (Monday, 1 October)

Erik Grimes

• Current W3C proposal for Patent Policy changes (Tuesday, 2 October)

Erik Parris

• No RAND Policy! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Erik Sigra

• They are farming us! (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RAND and Free Software (Tuesday, 2 October)

erik_nelson@freddiemac.com

• Patents and Standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Erika Meyer

• extend comment period please (Monday, 1 October)

EROTICAWWW

• SEXWEB NO.1 .. MEGAWEB-SEX ! (Tuesday, 9 October)

Evelio Perez-Albuerne

• Additional comments to W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Wednesday, 10 October)

Excel In Life

• Make A Chunk Of Money (Friday, 19 October)
• Make A Chunk Of Money (Thursday, 18 October)
• Make Some Money (Monday, 15 October)
• Make A Little Money (Saturday, 13 October)

F J Franklin

• Re: SVG ad inf. (Saturday, 6 October)
• Re: SVG ad inf. (Saturday, 6 October)
• SVG ad inf. (Friday, 5 October)
• SVG: "nothing at all" is better than RAND (Thursday, 4 October)
• SVG (Thursday, 4 October)

Family Survival News

• Anthrax... No, it's NOT a computer virus! (Sunday, 14 October)

FDWeller on Qwest

• Idiot notion to include patented technology in web standards (Thursday, 4 October)

Federico Heinz

• What is "reasonable" anyway? (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Thursday, 4 October)

Filipe Santos

• RAND is incompatible with free/opensource implementations (Friday, 5 October)

Flemming Frandsen

• Patents vs Standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Forrest Bass

• New T-shirts screenprints with original art (Friday, 12 October)

Frank C. Earl

• LT: Re: Comments on the Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 1 October)

Frank Grave de Peralta

• Following the Money Trail / Going Backwards on Democracy (Friday, 5 October)

Frank Horowitz

• Licensing mathematics (Thursday, 4 October)

Frank Martin

• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Frank Schafer

• Exclusion (Wednesday, 10 October)

Frank Schwaller

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Fred Condo

• RAND patent licensing (Sunday, 7 October)

Fred Sturman

• Objection to the RAND licensing option in the proposed policy. (Friday, 5 October)

Frederick Hirsch

• Zolera patent policy comment (Thursday, 4 October)

Freedome On the NET

• Good Idea, make the already big companies BIGGER! (Friday, 5 October)

FreemanAZ@aol.com

• No RAND licensing (Friday, 5 October)

friends@openxxx.net

• Hello, your friend recommended openxxx.net to you (Sunday, 14 October)
• Hello, your friend recommended openxxx to you (Saturday, 13 October)

friendz@openxxx.net

• Hello, your friend recommended openxxx.net to you (Monday, 15 October)
• Hello, your friend recommended openxxx.net to you (Monday, 15 October)

Friou Deming

• Talkback: Will the W3C Destroy the Web (Wednesday, 3 October)

G.M. von Hippel

• World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy (RAND) (Friday, 5 October)

Gabriel Gonzalez

• Comments (Tuesday, 2 October)

Ganesh and Sashikala Prasad

• A bad policy (Monday, 1 October)

Gary Powell

• stupid idea (Wednesday, 3 October)

gavin

• Opposition to proposed RAND policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Gavin Kerr

• Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Gavin Treadgold

• Patents have no place in standards (Friday, 5 October)

Gayle Knutson

• I object!! (Tuesday, 9 October)

Gemeinnutz@LuftHans.com

• standards require RF (Thursday, 11 October)

Gene McKenna

• W3C sows seeds of its own destruction. (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Monday, 1 October)

Geoff Wong

• RAND - feeding corporate greed. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Geoffrey King

• patent policy nonsense. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Georg Bauer

• Regarding the Patent Policy (Monday, 1 October)

George M. Sipe

• patents unacceptable in open standards (Thursday, 4 October)

George Smith

• RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

George Tucker

• Ill advised policy (Monday, 1 October)

Gerald Albitre

• The proposed change (Friday, 5 October)

GERALD LANNING

• RAND (Monday, 1 October)

Gerard Boissy

• Patent Policy (Tuesday, 9 October)

Gil.WILLIAMSON@syntegra.com

• RAND - why be different? (Monday, 1 October)

Gilbert Fernandes

• well.. (Monday, 8 October)

Giuliano Carlini

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

gjldp@iquebec.com

• May you please consider revising your draft? (Friday, 5 October)

Glen Scott

• My thoughts on the Patency Policy draft (Tuesday, 9 October)

Glenn Elliott

• Opposition to RAND Proposal (Thursday, 11 October)

Glenn Jacobson

• Proposed RAND Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Glenn Randers-Pehrson

• Re: Don't drown the spirit of generosity. (Thursday, 11 October)
• Applause (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: RAND Policy (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: public opinion on W3C (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Incorporating proprietary formats in any recommendation is a BAD idea! (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: SVG (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Learn from recent history. (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Learn from recent history. (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: W3C Patent Policy Framework Proposal (Monday, 1 October)

Godefroid Chapelle

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 19 October)

Golden Tiger

• RAND arguments... (Wednesday, 3 October)

Gordon Fischer

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Gordon Osse

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Graham Daniell

• RAND objection (Tuesday, 2 October)

Greg

• Rand (Wednesday, 3 October)

Greg Doran

• W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Saturday, 6 October)

Greg Kise

• Support Open Web Standards (Wednesday, 10 October)

Greg Parker

• W3C (Thursday, 4 October)

Greg Reagle

• RAND patents (Friday, 5 October)

Greg Ward

• Proposed patent policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Greg Wastek

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Greg Wilkins

• RAND comments. (Friday, 5 October)

Gregory Carter

• Patents (Thursday, 4 October)

Gregory Catalone

• Patent Policy (Thursday, 11 October)

gregory.d.dickson@accenture.com

• Patent Policy (Monday, 8 October)

gte592n@prism.gatech.edu

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Thursday, 4 October)

Guille -bisho-

• It shouldn't be done (Wednesday, 3 October)

guinevere liberty

• RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Gustavo Carvalho Homem

• Science != Bussiness (Friday, 5 October)

Hans Fiby

• No Patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

Hans Insulander

• Please protect my freedom (Tuesday, 2 October)

Hans Schulze

• Re: don't think so (Saturday, 13 October)

Hans-Kristian.Nordengen@raufoss.com

• A clear NO to RAND licensing (Monday, 1 October)

Harald Holtij

• REJECT RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Harger, Stacia

• What happened to free speech? (Wednesday, 3 October)

harry burton

• W3C (Thursday, 4 October)

Heiko Garrelts

• Patent Police (Tuesday, 2 October)

Henrik Jönsson

• Thoughts on your Patent proposal (Tuesday, 9 October)

Henrik Olsson

• Not a GIF-issue again...please (Friday, 5 October)

HERE IT IS!

• YOUR FREE 0870 NUMBER! (Thursday, 4 October)

HEW

• RAND fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Hilmar Berger

• patent policy (Sunday, 30 September)

Hippieman

• Do you think about stuff? (Wednesday, 3 October)

hogarth

• Patent policy comment (Friday, 12 October)

Horatio Davis

• Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Tuesday, 2 October)

Howard Christeller

• Absurd Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Howard Smith

• YOU are completely selfish & greedy (Thursday, 4 October)

hp

• I am appalled that the wc3 is going to patent w3c elements - whose bright idea was/is this? (Tuesday, 2 October)

ht

• policy (Monday, 8 October)

Hythian

• Please Rethink Your Policy (Monday, 8 October)

Håkon Wium Lie

• Opera Software's postion (Wednesday, 10 October)

Ian Bicking

• Incompatible with GPL (Wednesday, 3 October)

Ian Clarke

• W3C patent policy frameword (Tuesday, 2 October)

Ignacio Torres Masdeu

• Patent policy is madness (Monday, 8 October)

ilikechet

• BAD BAD IDEA!!!!! RAND FEES...NOOOOOOOOO (Wednesday, 3 October)

Ilya Haykinson

• patent policy comments (Friday, 5 October)

Important Message!

• Your Engineering web site is NOT Being SEEN! (Saturday, 27 October)

Imre Simon

• Long live open information! (Thursday, 4 October)

Info

• Software development / ref:1603 (Wednesday, 17 October)

info@life-protect.com

• Protect yourself ! (Friday, 12 October)
• Protect yourself ! (Friday, 12 October)
• Protect yourself ! (Friday, 12 October)
• Protect yourself ! (Friday, 12 October)

Ing. Alejandro V�zquez C.

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

InternetSales7@excite.com

• Marketing is the LIFEBLOOD of your Business AYNOC (Sunday, 28 October)

Ippolito, Mark E.

• Revised patent policy proposal (Saturday, 6 October)

Isaac Reuben

• Require royalty-free licenses for standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Itamar Shtull-Trauring

• On the use of Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory fees (Friday, 5 October)

Ivan Thomson

• RAND (Saturday, 13 October)

J

• RAND (Monday, 8 October)

J O Holloway

• W3C Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

J. Mark Turner

• Patents or Standards - Choose One. (Friday, 5 October)

J. Maynard Gelinas

• In strong opposition to RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

J. Payne

• Why a RAND? W3 & Microsoft/IE -- (Friday, 5 October)

J. Ramsey

• No Patents (Thursday, 4 October)

J. van Gorkum

• in doubt & uncertain (Wednesday, 10 October)

Jabba@JabbasPalace.com

• Your free listing @ JabbasPalace.com (Saturday, 13 October)

Jacek Piskozub

• A plot to destroy W3C (Wednesday, 3 October)
• An oxymoron: proprietary standard (Monday, 1 October)

Jack Martinez

• No patents or license rights on the web! (Friday, 12 October)

Jack Nagel

• patent policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jacques Pelletier

• Against RAND, patents and lawyers (Wednesday, 3 October)

jacques@panix.com

• proposed standards (Friday, 5 October)

Jake Donham

• no to w3c patents (Monday, 1 October)

Jakub K. Boguslaw

• problem? (Thursday, 4 October)

Jakub Nadolny

• Stop it! (Tuesday, 2 October)

James

• www-patentpolicy-comment (Monday, 8 October)
• I oppose patented standards (Thursday, 4 October)
• Avoid conflicts of interest (Wednesday, 3 October)

James B. Bushman

• [news] [ai] FW: RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory (fwd) (Tuesday, 2 October)

James Berryhill

• Negative Feedback (Wednesday, 3 October)

James Ewing

• RAND will kill the W3C's future (Monday, 1 October)

James Ferguson

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Thursday, 4 October)

James Gartside

• RAND and Rolalty-Free Licensing Mode (Tuesday, 9 October)

James Green

• Comments on the proposal (Wednesday, 10 October)

James Hebdon

• RAND vs RF patents (Friday, 5 October)

James Lamm

• w3c patent policy framework (Thursday, 4 October)

James Schneider

• Patent policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

James Stanton

• RAND policy. reasonable and nondiscriminatory (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jamie McCrindle

• Response to the response to public comments (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jan Peter Hecking

• W3C Patent Policy (Thursday, 4 October)

Janet Daly

• Re: your comment (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: failure to communicate (Tuesday, 2 October)
• W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Janette Seidel

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Sunday, 7 October)

Jason Antony

• Re: [OT] Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" (Monday, 29 October)
• Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: Why I have not spoken personally about the patent policy issue (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Sunday, 14 October)
• Re: "RAND" policy (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: A query about RF (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: Comment on W3C's proposed (RAND) Patent Policy (Friday, 12 October)
• Attn: the W3C (Friday, 12 October)
• Request to extend public comment period (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Request to extend public comment period (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees (Wednesday, 10 October)
• A query about RF (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Sunday, 7 October)
• Tim Berners-Lee [was: SVG ad inf.] (Sunday, 7 October)
• Re: RAND will fragment the web (Saturday, 6 October)
• Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Saturday, 6 October)
• OT: IETF [was: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none>] (Saturday, 6 October)
• OT: IETF [was: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none>] (Saturday, 6 October)
• W3C members [was: Your RAND dreams] (Friday, 5 October)
• Gartner's viewpoint (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Is Apple's patent valid? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: W3C Patent Policy - FOR (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web (Thursday, 4 October)
• Tim Berners-Lee, what is your stance on RAND? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: The Once and Future Web (Thursday, 4 October)
• Something that scares me (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: No Rand for Me (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Stop it Stop it! (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Comments (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jason Brown

• comments about Patent Policy Framework draft (Saturday, 6 October)

Jason Giglio

• Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jason L. Gohlke

• Patent Policy comment (Wednesday, 10 October)

Jason Reid

• WHAT????????????!!!!!!!!!! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jay A. St. Pierre

• RAND a bad idea (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jay Gaeta

• Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jay Sulzberger

• Re: [fairuse-discuss] Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

jduell@alumni.princeton.edu

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Jean-Philippe Moins

• OK... (Thursday, 4 October)

Jean-Yves Delort

• Don't do it ! (Friday, 12 October)

Jeb Potterfield

• Proposed RAND Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Jeff Herrin

• RAND Proposal (Thursday, 11 October)

jeff lackey

• what a sham (Saturday, 13 October)

Jeff Wulfekuhl

• The end?? (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jeffrey Foran

• No (Thursday, 4 October)

Jeffrey Michaels

• This is Wrong... (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jeffrey Porter

• RAND = BAD. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jeffrey Zeldman

• Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees (Tuesday, 9 October)
• "Lower-layer infrastructure" needs clarification, timing stinks (Thursday, 4 October)

Jenny Ashman

• Do you listen to the people? (Friday, 5 October)

Jenny Ono Suttaby

• Objection - Impossible for Small Businesses (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jens Laland

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Wednesday, 10 October)

Jeppe Cramon

• You're digging your own grave with this... (Friday, 5 October)

Jeremy Carroll

• Review procedure (Monday, 1 October)

Jeremy Conn

• Royalty on Patents (Thursday, 4 October)

Jeremy Keith

• I oppose the proposal (Thursday, 4 October)

Jeremy McPeak

• Paying to develop the Web? (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jeremy Petzold

• Innovation and incentive do not require patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jeremy Sanders

• Further objections, and question for Janet Daly (Thursday, 4 October)

Jerry Wood

• NO (Friday, 5 October)

Jesper Juhl

• A few more comments (this time on the specific wording of the "W3C Patent Policy Framework") (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Additional sources of commentary that I believe the W3C should know about (Friday, 5 October)
• Some of my reasons for objecting to the Patent Policy and RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Jesse Klug

• Patented Product Lines as Standards. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jesse S Housman

• Rand Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jesse W. Asher

• "Standards" driven by profit? Sounds proprietary to me! (Thursday, 4 October)

Jim

• Mike wanted you to read this. (Tuesday, 16 October)

Jim Agan

• My concerns (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jim Caruso

• Support for Chris Lilley's comments. Against licensing fees payable for W3C Web standards. (Monday, 1 October)
• Re:%20Concerns%20over%20aspects%20of%20PPF&In-Reply-To=%3C3BB84832.72C6E0B @w3.org%3E&References=%3C3BB84832.72C6E0B@w3.org%3E (Monday, 1 October)

Jim Conway

• Thanks (Thursday, 11 October)

Jim Davies

• FTC denied Dell patent rights to VESA VL bus in 1996 (Thursday, 4 October)

Jim Edwards

• No RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Jim Farmer

• Patent Policy Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jim Henson

• Comment (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jim Jewett

• RAND compromise (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jim Jinkins

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Jim Phillips

• royalty-free web standards (Friday, 5 October)

Jim Powers

• Including patented material in open standards is a bad idea... (Thursday, 4 October)

Jim Sansing

• Re: Six issues (Monday, 8 October)

Jim Webb

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Tuesday, 9 October)

JIMBOB

• what ?? (Thursday, 4 October)

JKelly

• A question. (Wednesday, 3 October)

Joachim Achtzehnter

• W3C Must Insist on Royalty-Free patent licenses (Tuesday, 2 October)

Joan Stanton

• RAND fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jochem Kossen

• Standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Joe Beach

• patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Joe Chellman

• Clarity is key (Thursday, 4 October)
• Patents have no place in web standards (Wednesday, 3 October)

Joe Crawford

• On the W3C and Openness... (Friday, 12 October)

Joe Desbonnet

• please don't (Monday, 8 October)

Joe Doran

• Changename: W3C to P3C (Friday, 5 October)

Joe Glenn

• W3C Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Joe Kaczmarek

• No. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Joe Morris

• No To The Patent Policy (Thursday, 18 October)

Joe.Hootman@bus.utexas.edu

• patents (Monday, 1 October)

Joel Hedge

• brief comments (Tuesday, 2 October)

Joel Norvell

• EXTEND COMMENT PERIOD (Monday, 1 October)

Joel T Schneider

• patent policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Joergen Ramskov

• Re: The Burden of Proof (Tuesday, 2 October)

Johannes la Poutre

• W3C Patent Policy (Thursday, 4 October)

John Abbe

• Open Web! (Monday, 8 October)

John Arras

• Patent policy change (Tuesday, 2 October)

John Billings

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Monday, 8 October)
• 100% Open Standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

John Bintz

• W3C Patent Policy Comments (Monday, 1 October)

John Carey

• RAND licensing (Monday, 8 October)

John Cowan

• Re: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? (Tuesday, 2 October)

John Dooley Road Runner

• RAND IS BAD (Friday, 12 October)

John Eure

• Please, no RAND (Monday, 1 October)

John F. Whitehead

• slashdot discussions (Tuesday, 2 October)

John Fitzpatrick

• Please don't allow pattented technology into web standards (Monday, 1 October)

John Gisclon

• Patent Policy for WWW Standards (Friday, 5 October)

John Gutierrez

• Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

John Hansknecht

• Patented Internet standards are wrong (Thursday, 11 October)

John Hazlewood

• Branded/Private Label Realtime Internet Travel Booking Engine in Eleven Languages (Wednesday, 10 October)

John Herron - Eagle Stock Images

• New Patriotic American Bald Eagle Screen Saver - Free shareware version available for download - Newsletter mz (Sunday, 14 October)

John Hornstein

• Patent Policy draft. (Tuesday, 9 October)

John J. Deighan

• Patent Response (Tuesday, 2 October)

John Jensen

• More than simply "don't" (Monday, 1 October)

John L. Males

• Comment on W3C's proposed (RAND) Patent Policy (Friday, 12 October)

John Lewis

• RAND (Monday, 1 October)

John McDermott

• RAND: What is reasonable? (Tuesday, 2 October)

John McMahon

• abuse of patents should not extend into standards realm (Saturday, 6 October)

John Medcalf

• Patents = Friction (Wednesday, 10 October)

John Mobley

• w3c (Wednesday, 3 October)

John Napolitano

• W3C proposal could allow patent grabs on standards (Wednesday, 3 October)

John Panzer

• Proposed Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

John Priestley

• sack members (Saturday, 6 October)

John Richter

• Patented Standards? (Wednesday, 3 October)

John Robertson

• NO STANDARDS WITH PATENTS (Tuesday, 2 October)

John Seago

• PATENTS (Monday, 8 October)

John Skelton

• W3C position on patents / business methods (Thursday, 18 October)

John Snippe

• Comment on Rand patent policy (Thursday, 4 October)

John Taylor

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 12 October)

John Telford

• RAND is inviting further abuse (Thursday, 4 October)

John White

• I'm opposed to the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing option (Friday, 12 October)

John-Houston Design & Implementation

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

john-paul delaney

• Patents = Web only for the RICH (Saturday, 13 October)

john.dehope@verizon.com

• Say No To RAND (Monday, 1 October)

john.wilson@countryenergy.com.au

• Patents on W3C Standards (Thursday, 4 October)

Join4FreeFrenzy@J4F.com

• Stop Paying For Porn! Join 4 Free Is Here! 27285338 (Tuesday, 30 October)

Jon Doe

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jon G. Booth

• RAND Will Discredit the W3C (Wednesday, 3 October)

Jon Osborn

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Jon Slaton

• W3C Patent Policy (Tuesday, 9 October)

Jon Snader

• RAND (Thursday, 11 October)

Jon Wiley

• Comments (Monday, 8 October)

Jonas Myrenås

• Just don´t do it (Wednesday, 3 October)

jonas persson. [artopod]

• Web standards should be free! (Thursday, 4 October)

Jonathan Borden

• Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)
• WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? (Tuesday, 2 October)

Jonathan Bullen

• PATENTS & THE WORLD WIDE WEB (Thursday, 11 October)

Jonathan Day

• Comments on Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 4 October)

Jonathan Kennedy

• Patent Policy Threatens Advancement (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Patent Policy Threatens Technological Advancement (Monday, 1 October)

Jonathan S. Shapiro

• Opposing patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Jorey Bump

• What are you, idiots? (Friday, 12 October)

Joris Van den Bergh

• www-patentpolicy-comment (Saturday, 6 October)

jose lorenzo

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Tuesday, 9 October)

Jose Luis Pumarega

• Nothing to say but "no" (Wednesday, 10 October)

Joseph Reagle

• We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) (Wednesday, 3 October)

Joseph Sickel

• Raising the wrong bar (Monday, 1 October)

Joseph Wang

• WWW Patent Policy makes same mistake as dead dot-coms (Wednesday, 10 October)

Josh Fryman

• Draft proposal allowing Patents in W3C standards (Monday, 8 October)

josh hoblitt

• w3c standards and patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

josh penrod

• what are you doing?! (Saturday, 6 October)

Joshua

• Patent Policy Framewrok (Wednesday, 3 October)

José Luis Otermin

• Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Saturday, 6 October)

Joycelyn Maddux

• Comments on draft Patent Policy Framework (Wednesday, 10 October)

Jozef Halbersztadt

• Re: Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative (Saturday, 6 October)
• Licensing mathematics - Apple patent (Thursday, 4 October)

Jsphrsa@aol.com

• 500 billion not enough for MS? (Wednesday, 10 October)

JTM

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

Juan R. Pozo

• Why are you choosing the wrong way? (Friday, 5 October)

Juergen Sauer

• RAND / Patent: NO ! (Sunday, 7 October)

Jussi Hirvi

• I vote for free standards (Saturday, 6 October)

Justin Bell

• This is bad, and can't possibly work. (Thursday, 4 October)

Justin Daw

• W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Justin Moore

• Insanity (Wednesday, 3 October)

justin prince

• no RAND CHARGES. (Wednesday, 3 October)

Justin Seiferth

• Opposition to the incorporation of licensed technology- an example from the Airlines (Thursday, 4 October)

Juvenal A. Silva Jr.

• Stop this... It's a shame (Thursday, 4 October)

K Briscoe

• New RAND policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Kai Henningsen

• Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Thursday, 4 October)

Kai Kunze

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Tuesday, 9 October)

Kamil Jonca

• Standards (Friday, 5 October)

Kannan Vijayan

• comment on patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Karl Cronin

• patent (Tuesday, 2 October)

Karl Doblinger

• RAND is a bad Idea (Monday, 8 October)

Karl Lehenbauer

• Patent Policies (Friday, 5 October)

Karsten M. Self

• Re: Janet Daley's comments to LinuxToday (Monday, 1 October)

Keith MacLeod

• Don't emasculate the W3C (Tuesday, 2 October)

Keith T. Kyzivat

• Free Standards are the foundation of the Internet (Tuesday, 2 October)

Keith Vick

• Comment on The Patenting Info (Saturday, 6 October)

Keith Winston

• W3C Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Kelly Held (WTMI Atlanta)

• No Fees in a free and open organization (Tuesday, 2 October)

Kelvin Scott

• fees for Web-standard products. (Wednesday, 3 October)

Ken Forbes

• somethin smell fishy (Friday, 5 October)

Ken Martin

• Re: Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Ken Seikel

• Against Patent Policy Framework and RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

Kenn Louis

• "NO" on RAND patent policy (Friday, 5 October)

Kenneth Geisshirt

• No patents on WWW (Wednesday, 3 October)

Kenneth R Westerback

• Why (Sunday, 7 October)

Kent Engström

• Patent Policy Issues (Tuesday, 2 October)

Kevin

• Patent licensing decision (Sunday, 7 October)

Kevin Anderson

• Need a Home Loan? Let Us Help! (Saturday, 27 October)

Kevin Donnelly

• Sad (Tuesday, 2 October)

kevingmoore

• Patents and Standards: two competing philosophies (Friday, 5 October)

keymaker

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Khuzaima A. Lakdawala

• Please don't shackle the web (Saturday, 6 October)

Kilobug

• No patent (Tuesday, 2 October)

Kitada Naruhide

• Can't agree (Thursday, 4 October)

kjensen

• Turning the W3 into an impenetrable oligarchy (Friday, 5 October)

krista gallagher

• opinion on patent policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Krzysztof Watroba

• Patentpolicy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Kurt Cagle

• Patent Policy (Monday, 1 October)

Kurt L. Sussman

• Patents not in the best interest of the web community (Friday, 5 October)

kurttasker

• RAND fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Ky Vinh

• Wrong thing going RAND (Saturday, 6 October)

Kyle Cranmer

• DON"T RECOMEND RAND (Monday, 8 October)

kyle willis

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Tuesday, 2 October)

L D

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Wednesday, 17 October)

L. Adrian Griffis

• W3C standards should remain unencumbered by patents. (Wednesday, 3 October)

L. Watkins

• the worst idea for web (Wednesday, 3 October)

La Place

• Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory ? (Monday, 8 October)

Lamar or Rose Combee

• Are You crazy? (Thursday, 4 October)

Lance Levsen

• RAND (no kidding :) (Saturday, 6 October)

landon dyer

• patent policy comments (Tuesday, 2 October)

Language Teacher, Inc.

• Talking Hand Held Dictionary Translator... (Tuesday, 23 October)

larfx@ticnet.com

• Just say no (Friday, 5 October)

Larry

• Jerks (Wednesday, 3 October)

Larry Bezeau

• Public comment on the Patent Policy Framework (Friday, 5 October)

Larry Dobson

• if (RAND) { delete W3C; W3C = NULL; W3C = new CElection } (Wednesday, 3 October)

Lars Nielsen Lind

• This is not a good idea (Wednesday, 10 October)

Lauren Wood

• SoftQuad Software's comments on the patent policy (Thursday, 11 October)

laurent

• w3c RAND licence (Monday, 8 October)

Laurent Klinger

• comment (Thursday, 4 October)

Lee

• nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products. (Wednesday, 3 October)

Lee R Boynton

• RAND Licensing Option (Friday, 5 October)

Lee T S

• Re: Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Thursday, 11 October)

Leon Brooks

• Problem with a point-by-point response (Monday, 1 October)
• Road rules aren't patented, why should protocols be? (Monday, 1 October)

Leonard Heyman

• Comments on patent policy (Friday, 5 October)

Les Barstow

• Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Apple's SVG patent (Wednesday, 3 October)
• The protection is needed, the patents are not (Wednesday, 3 October)

Linda A. Langden

• hi :o) (Friday, 26 October)

Linda Morris

• Re: New list - www-patentpolicy-comment - maintained by djweitzner@w3.org (Sunday, 7 October)

linukes@hushmail.com

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 11 October)

Lisa Lorenzin

• comments on proposals (Monday, 8 October)

LMichelle

• No Patents (Tuesday, 9 October)

Lnutt

• more work for W3C... (Thursday, 4 October)

Loe, Steven

• no patents please (Tuesday, 9 October)

Long, Richard J

• patent and standard are contradictory (Tuesday, 2 October)

longdistance@repia.com

• Quality conferencing at a low cost (Monday, 22 October)

LoreWeaver

• THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA (Friday, 12 October)

Lori Dupuy

• Objection to RAND Licensing (Friday, 5 October)

Lorntz

• wc3 (Monday, 8 October)

Lou Cephyr

• software patents (Wednesday, 3 October)

Louis Barlow

• Rand policy! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Louis C. Gasper, Ph.D., KHS

• RAND licensing option is not sensible (Friday, 5 October)

Louis Calitz

• Patent Policy Framework (Friday, 5 October)

Lowell Harris

• WEB infrastructure and RAND (Thursday, 25 October)
• Comment on patent policy (Thursday, 4 October)

lreisch@DOH.STATE.NM.US

• Who do you think you are?????????? (Wednesday, 3 October)

Luca Saiu

• About the patent policy in W3C web standards (Thursday, 11 October)

Lucio Tato

• RAND implies more changes (Friday, 5 October)

ludmila

• ������� � ������!!! (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Indikator vashego uspeha!!! (Tuesday, 16 October)

Luigi P. Bai

• Re: Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)
• Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Luiz Otavio L. Zorzella

• Shame on you! More time for comments, and "NO" to W3C-sponsored abuse (Monday, 1 October)

luke carter

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

• Re: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender (Friday, 5 October)

Luke Melia

• Don't make the wrong move on patents (Wednesday, 3 October)

Lynn Walton

• I Oppose the proposed Patent Policy Framework, dated August 16, 2001 (Tuesday, 23 October)

M Birch

• Opinion on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Friday, 12 October)

M Mamoun

• "AGAINST INSANE RAND POLICY" (Friday, 12 October)

m.Lund

• New public W3 standards involving RAND licensing conditions. (Wednesday, 10 October)

Maciej Arciuch

• Comment (Monday, 1 October)

Madden, Francis

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Tuesday, 9 October)

Magali Tranié

• Re: RAND invalidates W3C's mission (Tuesday, 2 October)

mailing

• Vous vendez des v�hicules (Friday, 26 October)

Make Money Fast

• Make A Chunk Of Money (Wednesday, 17 October)

Malik Madaki

• VENTURE CAPITAL (Thursday, 4 October)

Manegold

• comments RAND licensing (Friday, 5 October)

Mann, Lydia

• response to RAND Patent proposal (Friday, 5 October)

Manos Batsis

• Human evolution. (Tuesday, 9 October)

Marc

• Comments of Patent policy (Thursday, 11 October)

Marc Verwerft

• No to RAND as it is proposed (Tuesday, 9 October)

Marcello Della Longa

• RAND already damaging W3C imho (Monday, 1 October)

Marcelo Finger

• Disgraceful (Thursday, 4 October)

Marcin Surowiec

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 1 October)

Marco Maggesi

• Plese, no RAND!! (Friday, 12 October)

Marcus Duke

• No RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Marek Chmielewski

• Comment (Tuesday, 2 October)

Marina Brown

• Patent Policy Framework (Sunday, 14 October)

Mariner's Loft

• Royalties (Monday, 8 October)

Mark Anderson*INTERACTIVE*

• Keep the Web (Royalty) Free (Monday, 8 October)

Mark Andrich

• America Inc. (Monday, 1 October)

Mark Bartlett

• Oppose Patents (Thursday, 11 October)

Mark Brader

• RAND objection (Tuesday, 9 October)

Mark Bucciarelli

• PATO: Collective Security In the Age of Software Patents (Friday, 26 October)

Mark C. Pawson

• W3C Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Mark Christensen

• RF vs. RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Mark Coppel

• Doing a PhD? (Wednesday, 10 October)

Mark Cunningham

• Bad Idea (Wednesday, 3 October)

Mark Ellis

• comments (Thursday, 11 October)
• comments on patent policy (Thursday, 11 October)

Mark Gisleson

• Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 1 October)

Mark Groen

• web patents (Wednesday, 3 October)

Mark Hackett

• RAND inclusion (Tuesday, 2 October)

Mark Hahn

• don't hide it (Thursday, 4 October)

Mark Herman II

• There Was Once a Vision of a Free Internet (Tuesday, 9 October)

Mark Interrante

• RESPONSE -- OPPOSE PATENTS (Thursday, 4 October)

Mark Johnson

• Future High Level Functionality (Thursday, 11 October)

Mark K. Muma

• Fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Mark Koscak

• Patent Policy Framework Draft (Saturday, 6 October)

Mark Kot

• patent policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Mark Kraft

• LiveJournal Opposes RAND (Saturday, 6 October)

Mark Maloney

• Patent Policy (Thursday, 11 October)

Mark Mumford

• Why RAND will kill the W3C (Monday, 8 October)

Mark Plowman

• Patent Policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Mark Ross

• Patents and Standards = bad idea (Tuesday, 2 October)

Mark Schult

• Royalty-free standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Mark Shewmaker

• Policy is self-contradictory and could sideline W3C (Friday, 12 October)

Mark W. Alexander

• RAND "standards" (Friday, 5 October)

Mark Wutka

• If WSDL doesn't qualify as low-level infrastructure, this is hopeless (Thursday, 4 October)

mark@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk

• Re: RAND already being assumed for SVG (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

mark_tracey@yahoo.com

• Fork to gnuStandards if the W3C hurts the web (Thursday, 4 October)

Martijn Dekker

• MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards" (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Martin C S Gauffin

• Learn from recent history. (Wednesday, 3 October)

Martin Hauptmann

• Stupid Idea (Monday, 1 October)

Martin Kutschker

• I am disappointed (Wednesday, 10 October)

Martin Leisener

• Attack on democracy? (Friday, 5 October)

Martin Olsson

• Comments to "In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model" (Monday, 8 October)

Martin Sammtleben

• The web used to be a truly open medium... (Wednesday, 3 October)

Martin Veise

• You need to rethink your preposal about patented tech. (Saturday, 6 October)

Martyn Ranyard

• Just agreeing with a lot of people on Slashdot, and other places (Thursday, 4 October)

Mary Ayala

• How dare you! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Masaaki KOGA

• About PPF (Thursday, 4 October)

Mason Miller

• Please do not stop innovation in its' tracks (Monday, 8 October)

massey

• A Case for Freedom (Tuesday, 9 October)

Massimo, Tiziana e Federica

• Patent Policy draft (Monday, 8 October)

Mathias BAVAY

• No e-patents at W3C ! (Thursday, 4 October)

Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de

• problem #1: the authors (Thursday, 4 October)
• Opposing sections 4 and 5 (Thursday, 4 October)

Matt Kasdorf

• www-patentpolicy-comment (Thursday, 4 October)

Matt Kennedy

• Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest (Monday, 1 October)

Matt Mason

• Shame on W3c (Wednesday, 3 October)

Matt Michaelsen

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Matteo Brancaleoni

• Comment (Thursday, 4 October)

Matthew Arieta

• Patent Policy (Monday, 8 October)

Matthew Boulos

• Reasons not to accept patents into standards (Tuesday, 9 October)

Matthew C. Tedder

• Clear Consequences (Wednesday, 10 October)
• What's a Standard? (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: patents (Monday, 1 October)
• RE: Factually Accurate -- But Bad Representative (Monday, 1 October)
• Economy & Innovation (Monday, 1 October)

Matthew Cutts

• new policy bad for everyone (Tuesday, 2 October)

Matthew G. Saroff

• No. (Thursday, 4 October)

Matthew Gardiner

• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Matthew Rubenstein

• Patent-free standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Matthew Tuck

• W3C Patent Policy Framework Comments (Monday, 1 October)

Matthew Walker

• an extraordinarily bad idea (Thursday, 11 October)

matthew.copeland@honeywell.com

• patents vs. open standards (Monday, 1 October)

matthew@toseland.f9.co.uk

• Comments on Patent Policy Draft (Tuesday, 9 October)

Matthias Urlichs

• NO to RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Matthieu Herrb

• patent policy vs open source and free software (Wednesday, 3 October)

mattias.inghe@idg.se

• The mechanics of standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Maurice Aubrey

• Re: OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy (Tuesday, 9 October)

Max Bell

• Patents Have No Place in Open Standards, Period (Monday, 1 October)

Max Rible

• Licensing fees for implementation of standards (Friday, 5 October)

Mc Govern Ezequiel

• Reject this proposal (Tuesday, 2 October)

Me at Hotmail

• Your policy STINKS (Wednesday, 3 October)

Meers M Oppenheim

• Re: Adoption of RAND license (Thursday, 4 October)

Meg Otto

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Sunday, 7 October)

memorytogo@memorytogo4.com

• **SPECIAL**COMPUTER MEMORY (Thursday, 18 October)

MF

• MARKETING (Tuesday, 23 October)

Miaoling Chiu

• RAND licensing (Friday, 5 October)

michael

• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Wednesday, 10 October)

Michael Clarke

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 8 October)

Michael Atkins

• Patents within standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Michael Brian Bentley

• privatizing the open standards process (Monday, 1 October)

Michael Burford (GetRight)

• Another $0.02 against. (Friday, 12 October)

Michael Chermside

• Extension of comment period (Monday, 1 October)

Michael Crawford

• I oppose the use of patented technology in w3c standards (Monday, 29 October)

michael d. henry

• patent policy (Sunday, 7 October)

Michael Ellerman

• Time for a new W3C, this one's been hijacked (Tuesday, 2 October)

Michael Frankel

• Patent Policy Comments (Tuesday, 2 October)

Michael Gbadebo

• Patent Policy Framework (Thursday, 4 October)

Michael Guercio

• W3C Patent policy- ? why (Thursday, 4 October)

Michael Hartle

• Against Patent Policy Framework (Tuesday, 2 October)

Michael Kale

• comments (Wednesday, 3 October)

Michael Mounteney

• patented protocols. (Wednesday, 10 October)

Michael Robinson

• Handwaving (Monday, 1 October)

Michael Rose

• The Once and Future Web (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RAND inconsistent with W3C Mission (Tuesday, 2 October)

Michael Rowehl

• Patents restrict progress (Sunday, 7 October)

Michael Shigorin

• (obvious) (Wednesday, 3 October)

Michael Thome

• Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 4 October)

Michael Welles

• Avoid schism -- for the sake of the W3C (Thursday, 4 October)

Michael Wood

• Stop (Monday, 8 October)

Michael Zajac

• RAND licencing proposal (Thursday, 11 October)

Michaela Merz

• W3C Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Michał Pasternak

• My comment. (Monday, 1 October)

Micheal E. Barkley

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Micheal Lewis

• Re: RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Michel Debar

• Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework (Thursday, 11 October)

Michiel Ettema

• discriminatory patents (Friday, 5 October)

Michiel Toneman

• On RAND and patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

mike

• no commercial ownership of web (Tuesday, 2 October)

Mike & Anisa Golden

• Your greed (Wednesday, 3 October)

Mike Amundsen

• H.E.L.L.N.O. to R.A.N.D! (Saturday, 6 October)

Mike Brodbelt

• Proposed RAND licensing arrangements (Thursday, 11 October)

Mike Dewey

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

Mike Earl

• Great, just what the web needs... (Monday, 1 October)

Mike Guerrette

• Another sin of CAPITALISM (Wednesday, 3 October)

Mike Leary

• "NO" TO RAND LICENSING (Sunday, 7 October)

Mike McCune

• Uselicensing in W3C standards (Thursday, 11 October)

Mike Shea Jr

• Patent Policy Framework (Wednesday, 3 October)

MIKE TAYLOR

• Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Mike Todd

• Re: Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Patented Standards (Monday, 1 October)

Millsap, Michael G.

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

Mirko Kloppstech

• W3C policy (Thursday, 4 October)

misterl@primusnetz.de

• Free Internet, Free Standards (Thursday, 4 October)

morganmarino241@yahoo.com

• advice 20 (Wednesday, 17 October)

Moritz Moeller-Herrmann

• W3C should not split the WWW (Tuesday, 2 October)

Morten �rsted, [MOCH]

• No thanks (Monday, 8 October)

mplemmons@ee.net

• Bad Idea (Monday, 8 October)

Mr Confucious Say

• RAND Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Murali Mani

• About W3C patent policy (Tuesday, 9 October)

MyCrowsSoft

• Fees......... (Wednesday, 3 October)

Mystic Realms

• Read your profile.......... :) (Tuesday, 16 October)

N.Oden

• say NO to RAND licensing (Monday, 8 October)

nabucu@free.fr

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 1 October)

Nadeem Hasan

• Keep standards open (Monday, 1 October)

nam nguyen quoc

• Crazy (Saturday, 6 October)

Nancy Massey

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 11 October)

Narada Hess

• WWW Patent Policy (Sunday, 7 October)

Nathaniel Gray

• RAND licensing should not be allowed (Tuesday, 9 October)

Nazar

• Don't put your hands in my pourse !!! (Wednesday, 10 October)

Neal McBurnett

• RAND vs Universal Access; many other loopholes (Friday, 12 October)

Neil Harris

• Apple's RAND licensing, prior art, and the W3C process (Wednesday, 10 October)

Neil Watson

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Tuesday, 2 October)

Nelson Frolund

• reject using patents as basis of any W3C standard (Tuesday, 2 October)

nepp@df.copm

• asda (Friday, 12 October)
• asda (Friday, 12 October)

newdynamic

• Hi from Nick of 6 ,fuller ave (Thursday, 11 October)

News@incorruptible.com

• Incorruptible.com News (Tuesday, 16 October)

Niall Walsh

• Patents and Standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Nicholas Del Medico

• http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ (Tuesday, 2 October)

nicholas paredes

• open standards (Friday, 5 October)

Nick Ambrose

• RE: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Tuesday, 2 October)

Nicolas Chauvat

• Do not let patents creep into W3C (Tuesday, 2 October)

nielst

• Standards are for everybody - not just for companies with an IP-law and royalty budgets (Monday, 1 October)

Nigel Blackwell

• The Death of the W3C Foretold (Wednesday, 3 October)

Nigel Stewart

• Don't mix standards with patents (Friday, 5 October)

Nigel Wetters

• Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Nik Jewell

• Non-discriminatory - I don't thnk so (Thursday, 4 October)

nike@nike.com

• ȭ���� ��ġ�� ~~~ (Monday, 22 October)

Niklas Hallqvist

• RAND (Monday, 1 October)

NLK

• Web Standards (Tuesday, 9 October)

No Monopolies

• Dear Janet@w3.org (Monday, 1 October)

Noble, Lisa

• Essential Claim question (Monday, 8 October)

Nobody

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 15 October)

nopatents@onmyweb.com

• If you love them, then run to them. (Monday, 8 October)

NoSpam

• Charing for web products (Wednesday, 3 October)

NPPrice@aol.com

• RAND Fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

NRest

• NO! to "W3C Patent Policy Framework" (Monday, 1 October)

nucleus

• Patent Policy Draft (Thursday, 11 October)

onno

• Against RAND and Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 1 October)

Orri Erling

• In opposition to patents on the web (Tuesday, 2 October)

Orsted [Achtung]

• DON'T (Saturday, 6 October)

Oscar Zurita

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 17 October)

osmar

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Ostergaard, AJ

• Don't do it! (Monday, 8 October)

Oz Barron

• patents on the web (Thursday, 11 October)

ozan s. yigit

• comment on your patent policy framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

P. L. Charles Fischer

• RAND License (Monday, 1 October)

P.J. Ponder

• maintain free and open interoperability (Tuesday, 2 October)

Pantess, RA (Ray)

• Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 1 October)

Paolo Campanella

• The issues (Friday, 5 October)

Paolo Verri

• W3C Patent Policy: maybe a glimpse of a bigger picture (Tuesday, 2 October)

Parkison, Ron

• NO -- NEVER (Thursday, 4 October)

Pascal Desroche

• Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Pat Mahoney

• Define RAND (Tuesday, 9 October)

Patricia West

• Say It Ain't So, Joe (Wednesday, 10 October)

Patrick Chapman

• Comments (Thursday, 11 October)

Patrick Durusau

• No to RAND! (Monday, 1 October)

Patrick Hoogendijk

• RAND licensing is a bad idea (Friday, 5 October)

Paul Caton

• RAND licensing mode bad idea (Thursday, 4 October)

Paul David Lukes

• So-called "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" licensing IS discriminatory ... (Monday, 1 October)

Paul Davis

• W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Paul Dundas

• RAND & W3C Standards (Monday, 8 October)

Paul Dupuy, Jr.

• Objection to RAND Licensing (Friday, 5 October)

Paul Erickson

• Disagreement with new Patent Policy draft (Monday, 8 October)

Paul Evans

• w3c patent "policy" (Tuesday, 2 October)

Paul H. Smith

• Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards (Friday, 12 October)
• Conern of the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty fees" (Saturday, 6 October)

paul ih

• oppose abuse of patent system to limit web free flow of information (Tuesday, 9 October)

Paul Lee

• Regarding the use of patented technologies in standards (Wednesday, 3 October)

Paul Levy

• A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy (reformatted) (Thursday, 11 October)
• A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy (Thursday, 11 October)

Paul M. Lundgren

• Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Thursday, 4 October)

Paul Pathiakis

• Comments on the proposal (Wednesday, 10 October)

Paul Pollard

• Money Grubbing (Wednesday, 3 October)

Paul Rohr

• late comment, PPWG response requested (Tuesday, 2 October)

Paul Schreiber

• Comments on W3C patent policy (Friday, 5 October)

Paul Tichonczuk

• Stay Open (Tuesday, 9 October)

Paul Winkler

• Re: No (Thursday, 4 October)

Paul. Knowles

• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

paulc@best.com

• another NO vote for RAND licensing (Sunday, 7 October)

Pavel Roskin

• Why "non-discriminatory" _is_ discriminatory (Thursday, 4 October)

Pawel Kowalski

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

PC FLORIPA Inform�tica

• PC FLORIPA Inform�tica - Tudo para seu computador (Friday, 12 October)

Pedro Gil

• Against the Patent Policy (Saturday, 6 October)

Perttu Puska

• RAND licensing would have negative effect. (Friday, 5 October)

Pete Black

• Objections to patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Peter Adamson

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Peter DiMauro

• Fatal Weaknesses of the Patent Disclosure Rules: and the Unocal P atent Debacle (Thursday, 11 October)

Peter Goode

• W3C Patent Policy (Saturday, 6 October)

Peter H.

• RAND: A Bad Thing (Wednesday, 10 October)

Peter Haight

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)

Peter Hanappe

• Concerned about the Patent Policy (Saturday, 6 October)

Peter Hanecak

• I agree with Alan Cox: RAND License on "standard" is not good (Monday, 1 October)

Peter Lawson

• RAND is Orwellian doublespeak (Thursday, 4 October)

Peter Lin

• dangerous proposal (Tuesday, 2 October)
• great disappointment (Monday, 1 October)

Peter Magnusson

• In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model (Monday, 8 October)

Peter Street

• Patent Changes would cause problems - but not insurmountable ones. (Friday, 5 October)

phil

• Two things (Monday, 1 October)

Phil Driscoll

• RAND will destroy the credibility of W3C (Monday, 1 October)

Phil Howard

• The well of ideas (Monday, 1 October)

Phil Quinn

• RAND patent licensing (Sunday, 7 October)

Phil Reardon

• RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Philip and Shelia McArdle

• Keep the WWW a free zone (Wednesday, 10 October)

Philip Mansfield

• SchemaSoft comments on 16 Aug 2001 W3C Patent Policy Framework (Friday, 12 October)

Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int

• Re: Concerns raised by new patent policy / Correction (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Concerns raised by new patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Phillip Fox

• Patent Policy Feedback (Thursday, 11 October)

Phillip Smith

• World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy Working Group (Friday, 5 October)

phillip.harp@eer.com

• Re: When is RAND fair (Tuesday, 2 October)

phone.08717171249@fax.08717171250

• Please fax two copies of your promotional literature to 08717171250. (Tuesday, 9 October)

Pierre Phaneuf

• Re: public opinion on W3C (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: public opinion on W3C (Thursday, 4 October)
• public opinion on W3C (Thursday, 4 October)

Pieter Reint Siegers Kort

• my opinion on the subject (Web Technology Patent Area) (Friday, 5 October)

PISINI, JOHN E

• keep it open please (Thursday, 4 October)

Prasad Kommoju

• Box cutters found in WWW (Wednesday, 3 October)

President of Vallke Solutions - Velius D'Unnero

• Once in a lifetime chance, please read. (Wednesday, 3 October)

pressio main

• I reject a proprietary W3C (Wednesday, 10 October)

Priyadi Iman Nurcahyo

• say no to patent (Monday, 1 October)

Prosperi.T

• Re: Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 4 October)

protect@life-protect.com

• Protect your life ! (Friday, 12 October)

psevetson@netscape.net

• Patent Policy Comment / Objecting to RAND (Wednesday, 10 October)

PublicityWorks@netscape.net

• Publicity For Less - (Specialty Media Lists Available) (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Bookstore & Library Databases (400+ New Libraries; 175 New Age Bookstores) (Tuesday, 9 October)

Pugsley Donald E CRBE

• Royalty-free licenses, PLEASE (Friday, 5 October)

pulsj1018@aol.com

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Purtell, Andrew

• patent policy comment (Tuesday, 2 October)

Pål Wester

• What if we all follow your idea (Wednesday, 3 October)

QB Challenge

• Hey, check this out! (Thursday, 25 October)

R. Ivan Linderman \(best\)

• w3c: patent (entrance barrier) (Saturday, 6 October)

R. Steven Rainwater

• RAND bad, RF Good (Thursday, 11 October)

Rafael Calvo

• Standards should help education (Thursday, 11 October)

Rahul Dave

• Patent Fiasco: what the W3C must do (Monday, 1 October)

Rajendra Shrestha

• No to Unreasonable and Discriminatory Standards (Thursday, 11 October)

Rajnish Bhaskar

• My disquiet at RAND licenses (Wednesday, 10 October)

Ralf Hildebrandt

• Patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Ralph Hyre

• Royalty-free (RF) is the only acceptable 'compromise' (Tuesday, 9 October)

rand.w3c@bernard-hugueney.org

• RAND considered harmful (Thursday, 11 October)

Randolph Vail

• www-patentpolicy-comment (Friday, 12 October)

Randy Chase

• Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

Randy Sargent

• Re: RF only, please. (Monday, 1 October)

Raphael Bauduin

• Why standards then? (Thursday, 4 October)

raserat2001@yahoo.com

• Free money Making Website ! Costs Of Address (Sunday, 7 October)
• Free money Making Website ! Get One Before They R Gone I Got Mine (Sunday, 7 October)

Ray Benjamin

• RAND is a bad idea (Thursday, 4 October)

Ray Drainville / Argument from Design

• Firmly against standards 'patents' (Monday, 1 October)

Ray Gulick

• patents: whaddyew, crazy? (Monday, 8 October)

Ray van der Woning

• Enough about RAND (Saturday, 6 October)

Raymond Causton

• Patented Specification hinder development of free software alternatives (Tuesday, 2 October)

Raymond Pirouz

• KIO (Tuesday, 9 October)

rdean71@cs.com

• RAND (Friday, 12 October)

rdibble@dibble.net

• Concerning Patents (Saturday, 6 October)

Ren Hoek

• I personally oppose this move (Tuesday, 2 October)

Renard Jean-Marie

• my comments (Monday, 1 October)

reveal@bredband.net

• SVENSKA WAYPOINT SIDAN (Monday, 29 October)

Ricardo Campos

• Patent Policy Working Group (Monday, 8 October)

Ricardo Signes

• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Friday, 5 October)

Rich Salz

• RAND has no justifiable rationale (Tuesday, 2 October)

Richard

• W3C patent policy (Sunday, 7 October)

Richard Coleman

• RAND Policy for web standards (Friday, 5 October)

Richard Gregoire

• Rand Policy (Thursday, 4 October)

Richard Lyons

• patents and the 3w (Friday, 5 October)

Richard M

• Proposed Patent Policy will not benefit the w (Tuesday, 2 October)

Richard Stallman

• Comments on Janet Daly's statement (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)
• W3C patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Richard Walker

• Patent policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Rick Brady

• Patent Policy Working Group (Friday, 5 October)

Rick Jelliffe

• (Resend) RAND at W3C would reinforce global inequity (Sunday, 14 October)

Rick Oldfield

• Charges? (Wednesday, 3 October)

Rick Potthoff

• PPF draft (Friday, 5 October)

Rick Sullivan

• RAMBUS Revisited (Monday, 1 October)
• Why do you want to go here today? (Monday, 1 October)

rick@dimensionsinteractive.com

• Patents (Wednesday, 10 October)

Rik van Riel

• Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Risto Jokinen

• RAND licencing will re-define meaning of "standard" (Saturday, 6 October)

rixo@mail.de

• cool link (Tuesday, 30 October)

RM

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Sunday, 7 October)
• concrete policy modifications (Monday, 1 October)

Rob & Joey Knapp

• RAND (Monday, 1 October)

Rob Carmichael

• Mine field of software patents (Wednesday, 3 October)

Rob Helmer

• patents (Monday, 1 October)

Rob Horton

• RAND fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Rob Kerr

• NO to RAND Fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Rob Saul

• to RAND or not to RAND (Monday, 1 October)

Rob Simmons

• Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 8 October)

rob@robnet.com

• open, free standards (Thursday, 11 October)

Robert Bergesch

• RAND (Tuesday, 9 October)

Robert C. Brock

• RAND fees (Thursday, 4 October)

Robert Cole

• RE: W3C Responds (Wednesday, 17 October)

Robert Dean

• Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Robert Ellis

• there is no need for this (Thursday, 4 October)

Robert Hooton

• Against fees (Wednesday, 3 October)

Robert Koch

• Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Robert Lee Peeler

• STUPID (Wednesday, 3 October)

Robert Rhode

• Patent fees (Monday, 1 October)

Robert Stockmann

• the W3C has a virus (Monday, 8 October)

Robert Storey

• RAND patents (Monday, 1 October)

Robert Thomas

• The internet should be available to the masses, not just the rich and educated (Wednesday, 3 October)

Roberto Gliese

• RAND equals No Standard (Thursday, 4 October)

Roberto Schulz

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 10 October)

Robin Peters

• Response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Policy Draft (Wednesday, 10 October)

Robin Shaw

• so...how much is Microsoft paying you? (Tuesday, 9 October)

Rod Tye

• W3C Patent Policy Recommendations (Monday, 1 October)

Rodger L. Finnestead

• The general public will fight back (Thursday, 11 October)

Rodney Smith

• Is the headline: W3C embraces Patent Office policies? (Tuesday, 2 October)

Roland

• No patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

Roland Kaufmann

• Patents and standards (Monday, 1 October)

Roland Orre

• Absurd standards (Sunday, 30 September)

Roman

• Sorry to see this happening (Monday, 8 October)

Ron Arts

• Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Ron Bogas

• Fees for web standard products (Friday, 5 October)

Ron McKown

• Help me understand something... (Monday, 1 October)
• please look at the bigger picture! (Monday, 1 October)

Ron Schofield

• Standard + RAND = Monopoly (Friday, 5 October)

Ron Thigpen

• In Opposition to RAND (Monday, 1 October)

Ronny Krashinsky

• Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Roozbeh Pournader

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 10 October)

Rory Ewins

• Don't drown the spirit of generosity. (Thursday, 11 October)

Ross Golder

• Re: Royalty-based standards (Tuesday, 2 October)

Roy Harrington

• RAND FEES! (Wednesday, 3 October)

Rufus Polson

• Patents in standards and national sovereignty (Wednesday, 3 October)

Russ Howard

• W3C Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Russell Marks

• RAND isn't; Response misleading (Wednesday, 3 October)

Russell McOrmond

• No to patents in W3C standards. (Friday, 5 October)

Russell Pankratz

• ~~~DO NOT PASS THE RAND POLICY ~~~ (Wednesday, 3 October)

Russell Sears

• The argument against patented protocols is not ideological, it is pragmatic (Friday, 5 October)

Russell Thomas

• Your policy. (Wednesday, 3 October)

Russell Uman

• comment on RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

RussSend@aol.com

• Make some extra money using the internet (Sunday, 21 October)

rustyis

• Just who the heck do you think you are (Thursday, 4 October)

Ruth Attell

• charges................... (Wednesday, 3 October)

Ryan Connor

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Ryan Guenther

• NO! (Thursday, 11 October)

Ryan Rajpaul

• RAND (Monday, 8 October)

S. Vikram

• patent logic (Thursday, 18 October)
• patent logic (Thursday, 18 October)

S.Marshall@open.ac.uk

• RE: [WD]: Patents on Web Standards - dropping the petition (Friday, 5 October)
• My objection to the patent policy (Wednesday, 3 October)

sales@alphabetgraphics.net

• Best prices 4 print (Monday, 1 October)

sales@globalsilicon.com

• supply silicon metal and magnesium ingots (Thursday, 25 October)

Sam Schillace

• Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

samantha

• Ever read Orwell? (Wednesday, 3 October)

samleherisson

• RAND Licensing (Monday, 1 October)

Samuel Taylor

• Response to the RAND licencing proposal (Thursday, 4 October)

Sandip Sarma

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Wednesday, 3 October)

Sara@w3.org

• Employment / HR solution (Monday, 29 October)
• Employment / HR solution (Monday, 29 October)

Sargent, Todd

• Such a sad state of affairs (Wednesday, 3 October)

Sascha Brawer

• Patent policy (Friday, 5 October)

sattanino

• RAND Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Scott Busby

• No RAND in Patent Policy Framework Draft (Wednesday, 10 October)

Scott Davis

• Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process (Tuesday, 16 October)

Scott Johnston

• I recognize only royalty-free standards (Thursday, 4 October)

Scott Palmer

• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Stop (Wednesday, 3 October)

scott schmidt

• RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Scott Sesher

• Just say NO! (Monday, 1 October)

Scott Staab

• what are you thinking???? (Thursday, 11 October)

Scottie \

• My objection to Patent of Internet standards (Thursday, 11 October)

sdrie

• Patent Policy Framework Comment (Thursday, 11 October)

sea@asplinux.ru

• Versus RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Seairth Jacobs

• I realize this is a bit late... (Friday, 12 October)

Seamus Phan

• Against RAND from Singapore (Friday, 5 October)

Sean B. Palmer

• W3C Policy Breakdown (Saturday, 6 October)

Sean Crist

• Procedural problem (Monday, 1 October)

Sean J. Safreed

• RAND Licensing (Monday, 1 October)

Sean McPherson

• W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Thursday, 4 October)

sean.odonnell@sentia.ie

• Level Playing Field (Monday, 1 October)

Sean@magnonel.guild.net,

• Comment period should be extended (Tuesday, 2 October)

seb bacon

• Late comment (Monday, 1 October)

Sergey Tiraspolsky

• RAND will destroy the net. (Wednesday, 3 October)

Seth David Schoen

• Electronic Frontier Foundation comments (Friday, 12 October)

Seth Delackner

• Followup to your response: RAND is BY DEFINITION discriminatory (Wednesday, 3 October)

Seth Johnson

• Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy (Monday, 1 October)

Seung Hyun Kim

• NO royalty on WWW (Thursday, 11 October)

shadowdaemon@earthlink.net

• w3c (Thursday, 4 October)

Shamim Mohamed

• RAND: Misguided, Wrong (Friday, 5 October)

Shawn Bakhtiar

• Re: W3C patent policy (Monday, 1 October)

Shawn C. Dodd

• RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Shawn Tempesta

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Shawn Wall

• RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Shiraz Kanga

• Reject RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

Shlomi Fish

• I believe the W3C should not endorse Patented Technologies (Saturday, 6 October)

Shop@Manna

• Choose 3 Free Lipsticks Offer - While Supplies Last (Wednesday, 31 October)

shopbot

• Opposed to proposed patent policy (Thursday, 4 October)

simeon.morgan@ideas.com.au

• Patent Policy on web standards - my concerns (Monday, 8 October)

simon

• please rethink your policies regarding patents and RAND, (Friday, 5 October)

Simon Brooke

• Re: Apple comments on the W3C's proposal (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: Part II: A Concrete Alternative (Friday, 5 October)
• Slightly off-topic: the 'patented' technologies in SVG (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Responding to RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)
• An open standard is only open if it's free (Tuesday, 2 October)

Simon Green

• Comment on patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Simon Kitching

• W3C patents proposal (Thursday, 4 October)

Simon St.Laurent

• Re: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public (Tuesday, 9 October)

Simon White

• Against the new patent policy. (Friday, 12 October)

SkinWalker

• fees (Thursday, 4 October)

soji fatoki

• NO RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

stalbert

• Patent Policy Working Group] (Monday, 15 October)

Stan Podin

• NO W3C PATENTS. Open standarts sholud remain open. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Stefane Fermigier

• Eurolinux statement on W3C RAND proposal (Monday, 8 October)

Stefanos Kiakas

• RAND Licensing (Monday, 1 October)

Steffen Evers

• Request for extension of comment period (Tuesday, 2 October)

Stephen C. Scherer

• Support for Open-Source (Friday, 5 October)

Stephen Satchell

• Formal Comment on W3C Patent Policy Framework, Working Draft 16 (Friday, 5 October)

Stephen Wynne

• Against the RAND initiative (Saturday, 6 October)

Stern, Richard H.

• RE: What is "reasonable" anyway? (Wednesday, 24 October)

steve and allana

• If you feel fees must be charged, could a "sliding" scale be used (Tuesday, 9 October)

Steve Cox

• Re: SVG (Thursday, 4 October)
• Request for clarification on specifics and agenda (Tuesday, 2 October)

Steve Newman

• Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Steve Smith

• One last comment... (Wednesday, 3 October)
• W3C Patent Policy - A Comment (Wednesday, 3 October)

Steve Summit

• "RAND" policy (Thursday, 11 October)

Steve Waldman

• Part II: A Concrete Alternative (Friday, 5 October)
• Part I: General Comments (Friday, 5 October)

Steven Bell

• Will the W3C Destroy the Web? (Wednesday, 3 October)

Steven Champeon

• Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees (Wednesday, 10 October)
• WaSP to W3C: Remember Your Mission (Monday, 8 October)

Steven Healey

• Comments on RAND in three sections (Wednesday, 10 October)

Steven Jarvis

• RAND will be disastrous for the web (Friday, 5 October)

Steven Pothier

• RAND considered harmful (Thursday, 11 October)

Steven R. Newcomb

• standards vs. the public (Monday, 8 October)

Steven W McDougall

• Objections to RAND Licensing Mode activities (Thursday, 11 October)
• Patents are damage (Monday, 8 October)

Steven Wallace

• RAND (Friday, 5 October)

Steven Weinstein

• Patent Policy - Setting the bar on "where it is not possible" (Sunday, 7 October)

Steven.H.Rogers@seagate.com

• Disappointed (Tuesday, 9 October)

StonehengeTroll@aol.com

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Stuart Ambler

• Comment on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft (Sunday, 7 October)

Stuart Gaunt

• Objection to RAND (Monday, 8 October)

Stuart Robertson

• What he said (Thursday, 11 October)

Sudhir Gandotra

• W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Friday, 5 October)

sue butler

• W3C standards shaped by members' patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

Sumanth Sukumar

• No to RAND (Saturday, 6 October)

sup sup

• SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it (Wednesday, 3 October)

SuperLinux

• Opposed to Patents in Web Standards (Thursday, 4 October)

Susan Lesch

• Summary of 25 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Teleconference (Tuesday, 30 October)

Susan Margulies

• Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Svein Pedersen

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Thursday, 11 October)

Svend Ezaki Tofte

• Patents (Saturday, 6 October)

sysadmin@pinjax.com

• A logical appeal to retain RF standards for Web (Friday, 5 October)

Szilard F. Takacs

• Power corrupts.. can you feel it? (Tuesday, 2 October)

taipei7@yam.com

• 21世紀超勁爆生涯講座 (Tuesday, 30 October)

Tarun Ramakrishna Elankath

• patent policy (Thursday, 11 October)

tat-s

• w3c have been like a drug broker as japanese mafia? (Friday, 5 October)

td

• Patent Policy Framework Draft (Friday, 5 October)

Ted Bergeron

• Patent Policy (Friday, 5 October)

Ted Wright

• RAND licensing is bad (Tuesday, 9 October)

tengu@fastermail.com

• are you mad? (Monday, 1 October)

Terje

• Patented standard (Wednesday, 3 October)
• This must be stopped (Wednesday, 3 October)

Terrell Mitchell

• comments on patent policy (Friday, 5 October)

terry

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Thursday, 4 October)

Terry Bailey

• RAND (Thursday, 4 October)

Terry Griffin

• Patent policy comments (Saturday, 6 October)

Terry Laurenzo

• Late but furious (Wednesday, 3 October)

Tex Horning

• Patent Policy Disaster (Thursday, 11 October)

the head lemur

• No Rand for Me (Wednesday, 3 October)

The Rev. Tony Begonja

• Patent Policy Framework draft (Sunday, 7 October)

Theo de Raadt

• Re: SVG ad inf. (Sunday, 7 October)
• RE: Forbid RAND, require open source compatibility; W3C mission DEMANDS it (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Tuesday, 2 October)
• RE: W3C Responds (Monday, 1 October)
• RE: Patents are dangerous to open standards (Monday, 1 October)

this-is-the-shit

• New forums/massage-board. Please join now! (Monday, 8 October)
• New forums/massage-board. Please join now! (Monday, 8 October)

Thomas Breitkreuz

• Don't go the easy way (Tuesday, 2 October)

Thomas Clavier

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Thursday, 4 October)

Thomas H. Mitchell, C.P.A.

• Patent Policy Framework (Sunday, 7 October)

Thomas Ingledew

• GIF royalties (Wednesday, 3 October)

Thomas Jedenfelt

• PPF contradicts W3C's own mission. (Thursday, 4 October)

Thomas Longuemart

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 8 October)

Thomas Ritter

• Oh. You want to destroy the Internet. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Thomas Schulze

• Patent policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Thomas Strauss

• Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF (Tuesday, 2 October)
• INfrastructure vs Appliaction (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Thomas Zander

• Software patents (Tuesday, 2 October)

Thorsten Seitz

• W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Tuesday, 2 October)

thunderbird@jufuceyj.yahoo.com

• Looking for Mortgage Leads??? -racbflg (Thursday, 11 October)

tim

• comments (Thursday, 4 October)

tim bacon

• NO TO RAND (even after 11 October!) (Thursday, 18 October)

Tim Berners-Lee

• Why I have not spoken personally about the patent policy issue (Wednesday, 24 October)

Tim Bray

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 12 October)

Tim Edwards

• open standards are the best way to encourage innovation and interoperability (Friday, 5 October)

Tim Mensch

• Patent compromise? (Thursday, 4 October)

Tim O'Reilly

• Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Tim Sweeney

• Patent Policy Review Period Extended (Wednesday, 3 October)

Timothy H. Keitt

• Comment on proposed policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Timothy Hinds

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Tuesday, 9 October)

TISCALI

• The open-source community demands the immediate withdrawal of the proposal for a new W3C Patent Policy !!!! (Friday, 5 October)
• The W3C Patent Policy undermine the W3C credibility and neutrality. (Thursday, 4 October)
• Open the W3C to developers or the developers will found a new W3C !!! (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: WHAT????????????!!!!!!!!!! (Thursday, 4 October)

Tobias Benedikt Hoevekamp

• Please: Keep the Internet Royalty Free! (Thursday, 4 October)

Tobias von Mangoldt

• Comment (Thursday, 4 October)

Toby Perkins

• The W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft is totally unacceptable (Monday, 8 October)

Todd L Miller

• why software patents can not be non-discriminatory (Wednesday, 3 October)

Todd Stockert

• Objection to W3C patent inclusion in standards (Monday, 1 October)

Todd T. Fries

• freedom? (Tuesday, 2 October)

Todd Weiler

• Patent Policy (Monday, 29 October)

tokiko

• w3.org renamed to w3.com and retired (Saturday, 6 October)

Tom Cowap

• wealthocracy corrupting meritocracy - funding strategy proposal (Wednesday, 10 October)

Tom Garcia

• in support of patent-free standards (Monday, 8 October)

TOM HAVILAND

• Don't allow standards to be encumbered by patents (Friday, 5 October)

Tom Hood

• This says is all (Friday, 5 October)

Tom McDonald

• RAND (Wednesday, 3 October)

Tom Worthington

• Setting Standards for the On-line Community (Thursday, 11 October)

tom@croft.tc

• Love of w3c vs. Devotion to free software (Thursday, 11 October)

Tomek Barbaszewski

• RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Tommy Marcus McGuire

• Patent Policy Framework (Friday, 5 October)

Toni Mueller

• Re: RAND (Tuesday, 2 October)

Tony Sellers

• Additional thoughts against RAND (long, rambling, possibly incoherent) (Friday, 12 October)
• Additional thoughts against RAND (short) (Friday, 12 October)

tony@nhfpl.org

• I Oppose RAND (Wednesday, 10 October)

top

• 10�� 8�� 14:00�ÿ� �����ߴٴϱ�.. ^^v (Friday, 12 October)

TopXML - Mark Wilson

• Re: OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C (Sunday, 7 October)
• RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C (Sunday, 7 October)

Tor Perkins

• RAND (Sunday, 7 October)

Tor Slettnes

• W3 recommendations covered by patent(s) (Wednesday, 3 October)

Tore Ferner

• Listen to OSI and Mozilla (Thursday, 11 October)

torsten

• Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Trahojen

• open source is open mind (Wednesday, 10 October)

Tropea, Greg

• W3C Patent Policy Framework (Tuesday, 2 October)

Troy Muller

• Patent Policy (Read: RAND) (Tuesday, 2 October)

Troy W.

• Patent Policy for WWW Standards (Wednesday, 17 October)

TRUassayist1@aol.com

• Fwd: Patent Policy Comment (Wednesday, 3 October)

Tuomas Pellonpera

• Patent Policy Comment (Friday, 5 October)

Tyler Morrison

• web-patent policy comments (Friday, 5 October)

Tyler R Holcomb

• Royalty Free YES, rand NO (Saturday, 6 October)

tz1@mac.com

• Re: Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework (Tuesday, 2 October)

Ukiah Smith

• Stupid (Monday, 8 October)

Ulrich Berens

• Feedback on the Patent Policy Framework draft (Friday, 5 October)

user

• Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Tuesday, 2 October)

Vadim Plessky

• W3C and the Promotion of Fee-based Standards for the Web (Monday, 1 October)

Valden Longhurst

• Policy (Wednesday, 10 October)

Valentine Iourine

• Good intentions is the road to hell paved with (Wednesday, 3 October)

valeria curzio

• JOb OPPORTUNITY (Monday, 1 October)

valko yotov

• common sense (Monday, 8 October)

Vanessa Lintner

• WWW.ZELDMAN.COM (Saturday, 13 October)

VICECONTI.COM

• The W3C kills oneself . (Thursday, 4 October)

Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

• Do not let w3c become a tool for big corporations (Friday, 5 October)

vik@econz.co.nz

• Voice against the use of pateneted standards on the web (Friday, 5 October)

viktor@hot.ee

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 29 October)

vivek achary

• Introduction of patents? God forbid! (Friday, 5 October)

vma@antarix.net

• Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Monday, 1 October)

volodya@mindspring.com

• on Patent Policy Framework draft (Tuesday, 2 October)

Voluspa

• Comment (Tuesday, 9 October)

Víctor Romero

• patents (Tuesday, 1 February)

W. A. Winn, D.D., Ph.D.

• No RAND licensing (Friday, 5 October)

W.D.Wiseman

• I do not support this RAND proposal (Wednesday, 3 October)

Wally Pratt

• Proposed RAND Licensing arrangements (Thursday, 11 October)

Walt Ludwick

• RAND is WRONG (Monday, 1 October)

Walter Dnes

• Why RAND is a bad idea (Thursday, 4 October)

Wanda Cox

• Apple Computer's Statement on the Draft W3C Patent Policy (Thursday, 11 October)

Wanderley Ceschim

• No to patents (Friday, 5 October)

Warning@sar-shield.com

• Protect your family from cell phone radiation (Monday, 29 October)

Warren Puckett

• Standards are to be STANDARD by Definition (Wednesday, 17 October)

webmaster@axxxhome.com

• About Your Resource (Wednesday, 10 October)

webmaster@bexley.com

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 1 October)

webmaster@bexleyshopping.fr

• [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Monday, 1 October)

wendybrek@mixcom.com

• World Wide Web Consortium - Patent Policy Working Group (Tuesday, 9 October)

weston

• Patent Policy Framework draft and RAND (Thursday, 11 October)

whj whj

• RAND licensing = Bad Idea (Saturday, 6 October)

will

• Meta4z.com Website Giveaway! (Friday, 12 October)
• Meta4z.com Website Giveaway! (Thursday, 11 October)

Will Backman

• Global Standards require Global Acceptance (Tuesday, 2 October)

William C. \(Bill\) Thames

• What are you doing??? (Wednesday, 3 October)

William E. \

• Patent Policy Feedback (Friday, 5 October)

William Kramer

• W3C standards (Thursday, 4 October)

William Loughborough

• seed corn (Thursday, 11 October)
• Effect of public outrage?[was Re: SVG] (Sunday, 7 October)

William Stookey

• Opposition (Wednesday, 3 October)

William Wallace

• charging money for e-mail, etc. (Friday, 5 October)

Willis, Kevin J

• patent concern (Saturday, 6 October)

WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1)

• Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Thursday, 4 October)

Wojciech Dworakowski

• Patent Policy (Tuesday, 2 October)

Wojtek

• I don't like it (Thursday, 4 October)

WoodKR@ugcorp.com

• A bad idea (Wednesday, 3 October)

xavier

• Would it be the end of W3C standards as standards ? (Friday, 5 October)

Xavier Bestel

• Royalty-free for GPL implementations (Tuesday, 2 October)
• ciao W3C (Tuesday, 2 October)

XenoFORM team.

• XenoFORM (Wednesday, 17 October)
• XenoFORM (Thursday, 11 October)

XvDebbyvX@aol.com

• no to RAND licensing (Friday, 5 October)

Yaron M. Minsky

• Web Standards should avoid patents (Thursday, 4 October)

Yoann Vandoorselaere

• Please keep the W3C standard royalty free (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: RAND Patents: A great thing (Monday, 1 October)

Youn, Roy

• [홍보]유학가격★폭격쎄일★누구나 갈수있는기회!도전하세요!! (Thursday, 18 October)

Yves BAILLY

• Please, no more patent (Monday, 1 October)

Yves Savourel

• The RAND proposed in the Patent Policy Framework (Monday, 8 October)

Zach Anderson

• RAND fees (Tuesday, 2 October)

Zach Welch

• patent policy reponse (Friday, 5 October)

zazen

• Objection (Wednesday, 3 October)

ZilF@aol.com

• Re: IBM's comment on w3c patent policy (Friday, 5 October)

���~��T����@w3.org

• 企業可應用NETSCREEN防火牆建置網路安全連線環境,並使不同服務享受不同頻寬,有效利用ADSL寬頻達成企業虛擬網路連線. (Thursday, 25 October)

依瑪貓

• I don't like it (Sunday, 21 October)

관리자

• PersonalDB.net 회원으로 초대받으셨습니다. (Friday, 5 October)

서돈키호테

• Patent is not standard (Thursday, 11 October)

Last message date: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 16:07:28 UTC