"AGAINST INSANE RAND POLICY"
"forked" standards base
"Lower-layer infrastructure" needs clarification, timing stinks
"NO" on RAND patent policy
"NO" TO RAND LICENSING
"Non-discriminatory" commercial licenses impossible
"Non-discriminatory" patents will kill the web
"PATENT INSIDE" - doesnt work at all
"RAND" policy
"Standards" driven by profit? Sounds proprietary to me!
%20Concerns%20over%20aspects%20of%20PPF&In-Reply-To=%3C3BB84832.72C6E0B @w3.org%3E&References=%3C3BB84832.72C6E0B@w3.org%3E
%20IETF%20Patent%20Policy
(obvious)
(Resend) RAND at W3C would reinforce global inequity
**SPECIAL**COMPUTER MEMORY
--- dont quite understand this
100% Open Standards
10 8 14:00ÿ ߴٴϱ.. ^^v
21世紀超勁爆生涯講座
500 billion not enough for MS?
:(
[fairuse-discuss] Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy
[FWD: Please keep "RAND" out of W3 standards]
[news] [ai] FW: RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory (fwd)
[OT] Adobe patents
[OT] Re: MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards"
[Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy
[WD]: Patents on Web Standards - dropping the petition
[www-patentpolicy-comment]
[www-patentpolicy-comment] <none>
- comercial (Wednesday, 31 October)
- viktor@hot.ee (Monday, 29 October)
- cb105 (Friday, 26 October)
- Godefroid Chapelle (Friday, 19 October)
- Nobody (Monday, 15 October)
- John Taylor (Friday, 12 October)
- Tim Bray (Friday, 12 October)
- Roozbeh Pournader (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Ben Wrighton - Wapdesign (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Roberto Schulz (Wednesday, 10 October)
- jose lorenzo (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Timothy Hinds (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Jim Webb (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Kai Kunze (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Madden, Francis (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Oscar Zurita (Wednesday, 17 October)
- Douglas Holt (Monday, 8 October)
- CoyoteinCA@netscape.net (Monday, 8 October)
- Thomas Longuemart (Monday, 8 October)
- Michael Clarke (Monday, 8 October)
- Meg Otto (Sunday, 7 October)
- RM (Sunday, 7 October)
- Janette Seidel (Sunday, 7 October)
- Millsap, Michael G. (Friday, 5 October)
- Ing. Alejandro Vzquez C. (Friday, 5 October)
- dean blackketter (Friday, 5 October)
- Atabey Kaygun (Friday, 5 October)
- Benjamin Edwards (Friday, 5 October)
- Peter Haight (Friday, 5 October)
- Giuliano Carlini (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1) (Friday, 5 October)
- JTM (Friday, 5 October)
- Dave Reeve (Thursday, 4 October)
- gte592n@prism.gatech.edu (Thursday, 4 October)
- James Ferguson (Thursday, 4 October)
- Thomas Clavier (Thursday, 4 October)
- terry (Thursday, 4 October)
- Allen Small (Thursday, 4 October)
- Frank Schwaller (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Sandip Sarma (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Ryan Connor (Wednesday, 3 October)
- osmar (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Pawel Kowalski (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Peter Adamson (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Dan Mordan (Wednesday, 3 October)
- ED Summers (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Greg Wastek (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Brian K. Hill (Wednesday, 3 October)
- kyle willis (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Neil Watson (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Marcin Surowiec (Monday, 1 October)
- webmaster@bexleyshopping.fr (Monday, 1 October)
- nabucu@free.fr (Monday, 1 October)
- webmaster@bexley.com (Monday, 1 October)
- Ceki Gülcü (Monday, 1 October)
[xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
[xml-dev] standards vs. the public
- Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Jonathan Borden (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Jonathan Borden (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Jonathan Borden (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Jonathan Borden (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Simon St.Laurent (Tuesday, 9 October)
[xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed?
[홍보]유학가격★폭격쎄일★누구나 갈수있는기회!도전하세요!!
A bad idea
A bad policy
A Case for Freedom
A clear NO to RAND licensing
A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy
A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy (reformatted)
A few more comments (this time on the specific wording of the "W3C Patent Policy Framework")
A logical appeal to retain RF standards for Web
A Patent is not a standard. Standards are Open. Patents are not.
A plot to destroy W3C
A query about RF
A question.
About PPF
About the patent policy in W3C web standards
About W3C patent policy
About Your Resource
Absurd Patent Policy
Absurd standards
abuse of patents should not extend into standards realm
ACTIVADORES BIOLGICOS PARA ELIMINAR OLORES. PUBLICIDAD!
Additional comments to W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
Additional sources of commentary that I believe the W3C should know about
Additional thoughts against RAND (long, rambling, possibly incoherent)
Additional thoughts against RAND (short)
Adoption of RAND license
advice 20
Advice from a Modem War Survivor
After all your hard work?
Against fees
Against Patent Policy Framework
Against Patent Policy Framework and RAND
against RAND
Against RAND and Patent Policy Framework
Against RAND and Patent Policy Framework working draft
Against RAND from Singapore
AGAINST RAND policy
Against RAND, patents and lawyers
Against standards incorporating 'patented' technology
Against the new patent policy.
Against the Patent Policy
Against the RAND initiative
Allowing patented software into standards
Allowing Patents on W3C standards will make the w3c redundant
ambiguity of language
America Inc.
Amplie suas vendas
An extended comment on this Web-patent farce
an extraordinarily bad idea
An open standard is only open if it's free
An oxymoron: proprietary standard
Anasil - software network analyzer
Another $0.02 against.
Another boring standard letter which I copied and pasted off the EFF site.
another NO vote for RAND licensing
Another sin of CAPITALISM
another vote against implementing RAND licensing procedures
Anthrax... No, it's NOT a computer virus!
Anti-Trust Issues of RAND
Applause
Apple comments on the W3C's proposal
Apple Computer's Statement on the Draft W3C Patent Policy
Apple's RAND licensing, prior art, and the W3C process
Apple's SVG patent
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Thursday, 4 October)
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Thursday, 4 October)
- Chris Lilley (Thursday, 4 October)
- Les Barstow (Wednesday, 3 October)
Apple's SVG patent #US5379129
Application Developer
Are You crazy?
are you mad?
As suggested in the GNU WEB site..
asda
Attack on democracy?
Attn: the W3C
Avoid conflicts of interest
- James (Wednesday, 3 October)
Avoid schism -- for the sake of the W3C
BAD BAD IDEA!!!!! RAND FEES...NOOOOOOOOO
Bad Idea
Bad idea.
Best prices 4 print
Bookstore & Library Databases (400+ New Libraries; 175 New Age Bookstores)
Box cutters found in WWW
Branded/Private Label Realtime Internet Travel Booking Engine in Eleven Languages
Breaking off
brief comments
Cadastro
Can't agree
Cease & Desist
Centro de Rehabilitacin mental y tratamiento de adicciones.
Changename: W3C to P3C
charges...................
Charges?
charging for use of the web
charging money for e-mail, etc.
Charing for web products
Check Out the Best Prices for Your Toner Cartridges
Choose 3 Free Lipsticks Offer - While Supplies Last
ciao W3C
Clarity is key
Clear Consequences
Comment
Comment on patent policy
Comment on proposed policy
comment on RAND
Comment on Rand patent policy
Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft
Comment on The Patenting Info
Comment on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
Comment on W3C's proposed (RAND) Patent Policy
Comment on WC-3 Patent Policy
comment on your patent policy framework draft
Comment period should be extended
Comment to RAND
Comments
- Patrick Chapman (Thursday, 11 October)
- Mark Ellis (Thursday, 11 October)
- Jon Wiley (Monday, 8 October)
- Alice Corbin (Monday, 8 October)
- Al Johnson (Sunday, 7 October)
- Andy Macdonald (Thursday, 4 October)
- tim (Thursday, 4 October)
- Jason Antony (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Michael Kale (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Gabriel Gonzalez (Tuesday, 2 October)
comments about Patent Policy Framework draft
Comments of Patent policy
- Marc (Thursday, 11 October)
Comments on draft Patent Policy Framework
Comments on Janet Daly's statement
comments on patent policy
Comments on Patent Policy Draft
Comments on Patent Policy Framework draft
comments on proposals
Comments on RAND in three sections
Comments on the new patent-policy
Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
Comments on the proposal
Comments on the proposed change in patent policy
Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework
Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
Comments on W3C patent policy
Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework draft
Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
comments on W3C's Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
comments RAND licensing
Comments to "In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model"
common sense
Concerned about patent policy
Concerned about the Patent Policy
Concerning Patents
concerns from Poland
Concerns over aspects of PPF
Concerns raised by new patent policy
Concerns raised by new patent policy / Correction
concrete policy modifications
Conern of the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty fees"
Contribution to W3C consultation
cool link
Crazy
Current W3C proposal for Patent Policy changes
Cybersource vehemently opposes the W3C Patent Policy Framework proposal
dangerous proposal
Data interchange standards should be patent free (at least w3c recommended ones)
Dear Janet@w3.org
default to RF instead of RAND
Define RAND
Definitely hurting the W3C
destruction of the web...
Disagree with RAND license
Disagreement with new Patent Policy draft
Disappointed
discriminatory patents
Disgraceful
Do I understand this issue?
Do not allow patent bound standards!
Do not cater to the large corporations
Do not do this
Do not let patents creep into W3C
Do not let w3c become a tool for big corporations
do not tax the Web
Do you listen to the people?
Do you think about stuff?
Doing a PhD?
DON"T RECOMEND RAND
DON'T
Don't add RAND licensing to the W3C process
Don't allow standards based on RAND Licenses
Don't allow standards to be encumbered by patents
Don't be insane!
Don't change now.
Don't do it !
Don't do it!
Don't do it.
Don't drown the spirit of generosity.
Don't emasculate the W3C
Don't go the easy way
don't hide it
Don't make the wrong move on patents
Don't mix standards with patents
Don't put your hands in my pourse !!!
- Nazar (Wednesday, 10 October)
Don't sell out guys...
don't think so
Draft proposal allowing Patents in W3C standards
Earn $50,000 or more in 90 days
Economy & Innovation
Effect of public outrage?[was Re: SVG]
Electronic Frontier Foundation comments
Eliminate RAND option from new patent policy, only allow RF
Employment / HR solution
Enough about RAND
Entirely Against Patent Policy...
Essential Claim question
Established Standards
Eurolinux statement on W3C RAND proposal
Ever read Orwell?
Exclusion
EXTEND COMMENT PERIOD
extend comment period please
Extension of comment period
Factually Accurate -- But Bad Representative
failure to communicate
Fatal Weaknesses of the Patent Disclosure Rules: and the Unocal P atent Debacle
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Fee's
Feedback on the Patent Policy Framework draft
Feedback on the RAND policy
fees
Fees for web standard products
fees for Web-standard products.
Fees on standars, Patents on standars -> BAD IDEA
Fees.........
Firmly against standards 'patents'
Following the Money Trail / Going Backwards on Democracy
Followup to your response: RAND is BY DEFINITION discriminatory
Forbid RAND, require open source compatibility; W3C mission DEMANDS it
Fork to gnuStandards if the W3C hurts the web
Formal Comment on W3C Patent Policy Framework, Working Draft 16
Free Internet, Free Standards
Free money Making Website ! Costs Of Address
Free money Making Website ! Get One Before They R Gone I Got Mine
Free Software compatibility
Free Standards are the foundation of the Internet
Freedom is essential for Innovation
freedom?
From: DBBROADCAST
FTC denied Dell patent rights to VESA VL bus in 1996
Further objections, and question for Janet Daly
Future High Level Functionality
Fwd: Patent Policy Comment
Fwd: Play a hilarious prank call
Gartner's viewpoint
GIF royalties
Global Standards require Global Acceptance
Go for it
Good Idea, make the already big companies BIGGER!
Good intentions is the road to hell paved with
great disappointment
Great, just what the web needs...
H.E.L.L.N.O. to R.A.N.D!
Had to happen sooner or later
- craig (Thursday, 4 October)
Handwaving
Hello, your friend recommended openxxx to you
Hello, your friend recommended openxxx.net to you
Help me understand something...
HERE TODAY - GONE TOMORROW?
Hey, check this out!
hi :o)
Hi from Nick of 6 ,fuller ave
How dare you!
HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards
- BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6) (Sunday, 14 October)
- BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6) (Friday, 12 October)
- Paul H. Smith (Friday, 12 October)
- BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6) (Friday, 12 October)
- BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6) (Thursday, 11 October)
- BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6) (Thursday, 11 October)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/
Human evolution.
I agree with Alan Cox: RAND License on "standard" is not good
I am against the Proposal.
I am appalled that the wc3 is going to patent w3c elements - whose bright idea was/is this?
I am disappointed
I believe the W3C should not endorse Patented Technologies
I do not support this RAND proposal
I don't like it
I object!!
I oppose patented standards
- James (Thursday, 4 October)
I Oppose RAND
I oppose the proposal
I Oppose the proposed Patent Policy Framework, dated August 16, 2001
I oppose the use of patented technology in w3c standards
I personally oppose this move
I realize this is a bit late...
I recognize only royalty-free standards
I reject a proprietary W3C
I stand in opposition to RAND
I vote for free standards
I'm opposed to the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing option
IBM's comment on w3c patent policy
Idiot notion to include patented technology in web standards
IETF Patent Policy
if (RAND) { delete W3C; W3C = NULL; W3C = new CElection }
If WSDL doesn't qualify as low-level infrastructure, this is hopeless
If you feel fees must be charged, could a "sliding" scale be used
If you love them, then run to them.
Ill advised policy
image damage, legitimacy of w3c endangered
Importance of Interoperability and the effects of non RF licenses
in doubt & uncertain
In opposition to patents on the web
In Opposition to RAND
In Response To Proposed Patent Policy
- cbma (Tuesday, 9 October)
In strong opposition to RAND
In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model
in support of patent-free standards
Including patented material in open standards is a bad idea...
Incompatible with GPL
Incorporating proprietary formats in any recommendation is a BAD idea!
Incorruptible.com News
Indikator vashego uspeha!!!
INfrastructure vs Appliaction
Innovation and incentive do not require patents
Insanity
Internet Society France against Patents
- David (Tuesday, 2 October)
Introduction of patents? God forbid!
Iper1 per l'e-commerce
Is Apple's patent valid?
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Thursday, 4 October)
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Thursday, 4 October)
- Chris Lilley (Thursday, 4 October)
- Adam Warner (Thursday, 4 October)
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Thursday, 4 October)
- Chris Lilley (Thursday, 4 October)
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Thursday, 4 October)
- Jason Antony (Thursday, 4 October)
- Adam Warner (Thursday, 4 October)
- Jason Antony (Thursday, 4 October)
Is the headline: W3C embraces Patent Office policies?
Is the RF license GPL-compatible?
It shouldn't be done
It's too early to change our model
Janet Daley's comments to LinuxToday
Jerks
- Larry (Wednesday, 3 October)
JOb OPPORTUNITY
Just agreeing with a lot of people on Slashdot, and other places
Just an example
Just don´t do it
Just say no
Just Say No to RAND Licensing
Just say NO!
Just who the heck do you think you are
keep it open please
keep royalties out of the web
keep standards free and open
Keep standards open
Keep the Web (Royalty) Free
Keep the web open and alive
Keep the WWW a free zone
Kees heeft mijn naaktfotos op fotovanmijnex.nl gezet!
KIO
Last day of comments, nothing changed
Late but furious
Late comment
Late comment on patents in W3 standards
late comment, PPWG response requested
Latest patent drafts
lawyers & epitaphs
Learn from recent history.
Legal infrastructure in a W3C recommendation ?
Level Playing Field
Liars and Hypocrites
License fees
license fees will never be non-discriminatory
Licensing fees for implementation of standards
Licensing mathematics
Licensing mathematics - Apple patent
Listen to OSI and Mozilla
LiveJournal Opposes RAND
Long live open information!
Looking for Mortgage Leads??? -racbflg
Love of w3c vs. Devotion to free software
LT: Re: Comments on the Patent Policy Framework
maintain free and open interoperability
Make A Chunk Of Money
Make A Little Money
Make some extra money using the internet
Make Some Money
MARKETING
Marketing is the LIFEBLOOD of your Business AYNOC
Maximum Email Profits!
May you please consider revising your draft?
Meta4z.com Website Giveaway!
- will (Friday, 12 October)
- will (Thursday, 11 October)
Mike wanted you to read this.
- Jim (Tuesday, 16 October)
Mine field of software patents
Money Grubbing
More than simply "don't"
more work for W3C...
- Lnutt (Thursday, 4 October)
Mortgage Leads Available!
Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
MSN blocks non-IE browsers: the real idea with RAND "standards"
My comment.
my comments
my comments on the Patent Policy for WWW Standards
My concerns
My disquiet at RAND licenses
My objection to Patent of Internet standards
My objection to the patent policy
my opinion on the subject (Web Technology Patent Area)
My thoughts on the Patency Policy draft
My view of the new standard that some jerks are trying to force on the rest of us
Nanotechnology Research funding
Need a Home Loan? Let Us Help!
Negative Feedback
New forums/massage-board. Please join now!
New Friends From Bermuda!?
New list - www-patentpolicy-comment - maintained by djweitzner@w3.org
New Patriotic American Bald Eagle Screen Saver - Free shareware version available for download - Newsletter mz
new policy bad for everyone
New public W3 standards involving RAND licensing conditions.
- m.Lund (Wednesday, 10 October)
New RAND policy
New T-shirts screenprints with original art
Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process
NO
NO -- NEVER
no commercial ownership of web
- mike (Tuesday, 2 October)
No e-patents at W3C !
No Fees in a free and open organization
NO NO NO!
No patent
No Patents
No patents on WWW
No patents or license rights on the web!
no patents please
No RAND
no RAND CHARGES.
No Rand for Me
No RAND in Patent Policy Framework Draft
No RAND licensing
No RAND Policy!
No Rand.
NO royalty on WWW
No Software Patents
No software patents through the back door
NO STANDARDS WITH PATENTS
No Subject
No thanks
No to patents
No to patents in W3C standards.
No to RAND
NO TO RAND (even after 11 October!)
No to RAND as it is proposed
NO to RAND Fees
No to RAND licensing
No to RAND!
No To The Patent Policy
No to Unreasonable and Discriminatory Standards
no to w3c patents
NO W3C PATENTS. Open standarts sholud remain open.
NO!
NO! to "W3C Patent Policy Framework"
- NRest (Monday, 1 October)
No!! RAND!
No, no no
NO, NO, NO!
- 0liv (Friday, 26 October)
No.
Non-discriminatory - I don't thnk so
non-free patents have no place in w3c standards
nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products.
- Lee (Wednesday, 3 October)
Not a GIF-issue again...please
Not a good idea
Nothing to say but "no"
Objection
Objection - Impossible for Small Businesses
Objection to RAND
Objection to RAND Licensing
Objection to the RAND licensing option in the proposed policy.
Objection to W3C patent inclusion in standards
Objections to patent policy
Objections to RAND Licensing Mode activities
OFFER FOR HELP
oh for god's sake
Oh. You want to destroy the Internet.
OK Janet Daly - Let us SPELL IT OUT for you
OK...
on Patent Policy Framework draft
On RAND and patents
On the use of Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory fees
On the W3C and Openness...
Once in a lifetime chance, please read.
One last comment...
One little voice against
One Question.....
open source is open mind
Open Source Public Feedback on RAND licenses
open standards
open standards are the best way to encourage innovation and interoperability
open standards.
Open the W3C to developers or the developers will found a new W3C !!!
Open Web!
open, free standards
Opera Software's postion
Opinion
Opinion in opposition to RAND provisions of Patent Policy
opinion on patent policy
Opinion on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
oppose abuse of patent system to limit web free flow of information
Oppose Patents
Opposed to inclusion of patents in standards
Opposed to Patents in Web Standards
Opposed to proposed patent policy
Opposing patent policy
Opposing sections 4 and 5
Opposition
Opposition to proposed RAND policy
- gavin (Wednesday, 3 October)
Opposition to RAND Patent Policy
Opposition to RAND Proposal
Opposition to the incorporation of licensed technology- an example from the Airlines
OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy
OT: IETF [was: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none>]
Part I: General Comments
Part II: A Concrete Alternative
patent
patent and standard are contradictory
Patent Changes would cause problems - but not insurmountable ones.
Patent Comments
Patent compromise?
patent concern
Patent Effects
Patent fees
Patent Fiasco: what the W3C must do
patent inclusion in W3C standards
Patent is not standard
- 서돈키호테 (Thursday, 11 October)
Patent licensing decision
patent logic
Patent Police
Patent Policies
Patent Policies...
Patent Policy
- Todd Weiler (Monday, 29 October)
- Gregory Catalone (Thursday, 11 October)
- Mark Maloney (Thursday, 11 October)
- Tarun Ramakrishna Elankath (Thursday, 11 October)
- Ben van 't Ende (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Joel T Schneider (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Richard Walker (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Mark Plowman (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Gerard Boissy (Tuesday, 9 October)
- gregory.d.dickson@accenture.com (Monday, 8 October)
- Daniel Webb (Monday, 8 October)
- Dhruva Reddy (Monday, 8 October)
- Matthew Arieta (Monday, 8 October)
- Eric Johnson (Sunday, 7 October)
- michael d. henry (Sunday, 7 October)
- Clifford Satlow (Sunday, 7 October)
- Sascha Brawer (Friday, 5 October)
- MIKE TAYLOR (Friday, 5 October)
- Ted Bergeron (Friday, 5 October)
- Edward Terry (Friday, 5 October)
- Susan Margulies (Friday, 5 October)
- Ronny Krashinsky (Friday, 5 October)
- Bill Bland (Friday, 5 October)
- Emery, Pat (Thursday, 4 October)
- cheeser@ionet.net (Thursday, 4 October)
- Mark Kot (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Jack Nagel (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Randy Chase (Wednesday, 3 October)
- James Schneider (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Charles J. Lingo (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Ken Martin (Tuesday, 2 October)
- torsten (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Gavin Kerr (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Bryan Dougherty (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Jason Giglio (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Thomas Schulze (Tuesday, 2 October)
- John Gutierrez (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Wojciech Dworakowski (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Tim O'Reilly (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Hilmar Berger (Sunday, 30 September)
- David Udin (Monday, 1 October)
- aitken@echo-on.net (Monday, 1 October)
- Joe Beach (Monday, 1 October)
- Ralf Hildebrandt (Monday, 1 October)
- Kurt Cagle (Monday, 1 October)
Patent Policy (Read: RAND)
Patent Policy - Setting the bar on "where it is not possible"
Patent Policy - Standardizing patented tech only supports the cor porations
Patent policy change
Patent policy comment
Patent Policy Comment / Objecting to RAND
Patent Policy Comment/Remarks
Patent Policy comments
Patent Policy disapproval
Patent Policy Disaster
Patent Policy Draft
Patent Policy draft.
Patent policy draft: DNAR?
Patent Policy Feedback
Patent Policy for WWW Standards
Patent Policy Framework
- Marina Brown (Sunday, 14 October)
- Rob Simmons (Monday, 8 October)
- Thomas H. Mitchell, C.P.A. (Sunday, 7 October)
- Louis Calitz (Friday, 5 October)
- Tommy Marcus McGuire (Friday, 5 October)
- Michael Gbadebo (Thursday, 4 October)
- Mike Shea Jr (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Mark Gisleson (Monday, 1 October)
- Pantess, RA (Ray) (Monday, 1 October)
Patent Policy Framework Comment
- sdrie (Thursday, 11 October)
Patent Policy Framework draft
- L D (Wednesday, 17 October)
- Nancy Massey (Thursday, 11 October)
- Svein Pedersen (Thursday, 11 October)
- linukes@hushmail.com (Thursday, 11 October)
- Jens Laland (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Austin Brooks (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Anne E. Jablinske (Tuesday, 9 October)
- John Billings (Monday, 8 October)
- The Rev. Tony Begonja (Sunday, 7 October)
- Mark Koscak (Saturday, 6 October)
- Mike Dewey (Friday, 5 October)
- jduell@alumni.princeton.edu (Friday, 5 October)
- Jon Osborn (Friday, 5 October)
- Gordon Osse (Friday, 5 October)
- Gordon Fischer (Friday, 5 October)
- Jim Jinkins (Friday, 5 October)
- Matt Michaelsen (Friday, 5 October)
- td (Friday, 5 October)
- cmorgan@aracnet.com (Thursday, 4 October)
Patent Policy Framework draft and RAND
Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
Patent Policy Framewrok
Patent policy is madness
Patent Policy Issues
patent policy nonsense.
Patent Policy on web standards - my concerns
patent policy reponse
Patent Policy review
Patent Policy Review Period Extended
Patent Policy Threatens Advancement
Patent Policy Threatens Technological Advancement
patent policy vs open source and free software
Patent Policy Working Group
Patent Policy Working Group]
Patent policy: RAND
- David (Monday, 1 October)
Patent Response
Patent-free standards
patent-response
Patented Internet standards are wrong
Patented Product Lines as Standards.
patented protocols.
Patented Specification hinder development of free software alternatives
Patented standard
- Terje (Wednesday, 3 October)
Patented Standards
Patented standards are not standards.
Patented Standards?
Patentented Standards Are Harmful
Patentpolicy
Patents
- Antonio Arauzo (Wednesday, 17 October)
- Anders (Tuesday, 16 October)
- rick@dimensionsinteractive.com (Wednesday, 10 October)
- John Seago (Monday, 8 October)
- Svend Ezaki Tofte (Saturday, 6 October)
- Gregory Carter (Thursday, 4 October)
- Alan Woodland (Friday, 5 October)
- Court Demas (Friday, 5 October)
- Víctor Romero (Tuesday, 1 February)
- Matthew C. Tedder (Monday, 1 October)
- Joe.Hootman@bus.utexas.edu (Monday, 1 October)
- Rob Helmer (Monday, 1 October)
patents & standards
PATENTS & THE WORLD WIDE WEB
Patents = Friction
Patents = Web only for the RICH
Patents and standards
Patents and Standards = bad idea
Patents and Standards: two competing philosophies
patents and the 3w
Patents and the WWW
Patents are damage
Patents are dangerous to open standards
Patents don't belong on the WWW
Patents For What Purpose ????
Patents Have No Place in Open Standards, Period
Patents have no place in standards
Patents have no place in web standards
Patents in standards and national sovereignty
patents in W3C standards
Patents not in the best interest of the web community
patents on the web
Patents on W3C Standards
Patents or Standards - Choose One.
Patents Policy
Patents restrict progress
patents unacceptable in open standards
Patents violate founding principle of w3.org
Patents vs Standards
patents vs. open standards
Patents will break Internet
Patents will kill the standards
Patents will undermine useability
Patents within standards
patents: whaddyew, crazy?
Patents?
PATO: Collective Security In the Age of Software Patents
Paying to develop the Web?
PC FLORIPA Informtica - Tudo para seu computador
Personal request
PersonalDB.net 회원으로 초대받으셨습니다.
petition
Play a hilarious prank call
plea against RAND patents in W3C standards
Please do not stop innovation in its' tracks
please don't
Please don't allow pattented technology into web standards
Please don't shackle the web
please don't!
- David (Monday, 1 October)
Please fax two copies of your promotional literature to 08717171250.
Please keep ALL standards free of RAND patents
Please keep the W3C standard royalty free
please look at the bigger picture!
Please protect my freedom
Please re-think patent policy.
Please Reject the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
please rethink your policies regarding patents and RAND,
- simon (Friday, 5 October)
Please Rethink Your Policy
Please, no more patent
Please, no RAND
Please: Keep the Internet Royalty Free!
Plese, no RAND!!
Policy
Policy is self-contradictory and could sideline W3C
Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees
Potential Anti-trust issues with new rulling...
Power corrupts.. can you feel it?
PPF contradicts W3C's own mission.
PPF draft
Pre-Approved $5000 Platinum Credit Card !
privatizing the open standards process
problem #1: the authors
Problem with a point-by-point response
problem?
Procedural problem
Proposal for clarification of RAND licence definition.
Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model.
Proposal for modification to Member Patent Licensing Commitments.
Proposed Changes in W3C patent policy
Proposed patent policy
Proposed Patent Policy - The Antithesis of W3C
Proposed Patent Policy Framework
Proposed Patent Policy will not benefit the w
Proposed Patent Royalty Policy for WWW
Proposed RAND Licensing arrangements
Proposed RAND Patent Policy
Proposed RAND Policy
proposed standards
proposed W3C patent policy
Propposed RAND standand
Protect the future before it's too late!!
Protect your family from cell phone radiation
Protect your life !
Protect yourself !
public comment
Public comment on the Patent Policy Framework
Public Comments
Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
public opinion on W3C
Publicity For Less - (Specialty Media Lists Available)
Quality conferencing at a low cost
Raising the wrong bar
RAMBUS Revisited
RAND
- Ivan Thomson (Saturday, 13 October)
- rdean71@cs.com (Friday, 12 October)
- Jon Snader (Thursday, 11 October)
- Robert Bergesch (Tuesday, 9 October)
- cfb@sol.usc.edu (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Ryan Rajpaul (Monday, 8 October)
- J (Monday, 8 October)
- Tor Perkins (Sunday, 7 October)
- Dan Howard (Sunday, 7 October)
- Eric Jacobsen (Saturday, 6 October)
- Shawn Wall (Friday, 5 October)
- Alex Morales (Friday, 5 October)
- Phil Reardon (Friday, 5 October)
- scott schmidt (Friday, 5 October)
- Steven Wallace (Friday, 5 October)
- Terry Bailey (Thursday, 4 October)
- Curt Wuollet (Thursday, 4 October)
- bordcon@earthlink.net (Thursday, 4 October)
- Bob Hogan (Thursday, 4 October)
- StonehengeTroll@aol.com (Wednesday, 3 October)
- pulsj1018@aol.com (Wednesday, 3 October)
- D J Richert (Wednesday, 3 October)
- don@solderquik.com (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Jon Doe (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Greg (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Micheal E. Barkley (Wednesday, 3 October)
- keymaker (Wednesday, 3 October)
- John-Houston Design & Implementation (Wednesday, 3 October)
- luke carter (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Tom McDonald (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Shawn Tempesta (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Shawn C. Dodd (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Micheal Lewis (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Toni Mueller (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Dave MacKinnon (Tuesday, 2 October)
- George Smith (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Anthony Watson (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Tomek Barbaszewski (Tuesday, 2 October)
- John Lewis (Monday, 1 October)
- GERALD LANNING (Monday, 1 October)
- Rob & Joey Knapp (Monday, 1 October)
- Niklas Hallqvist (Monday, 1 October)
RAND "standards"
RAND & W3C Standards
RAND (no kidding :)
RAND - feeding corporate greed.
RAND - why be different?
RAND / Patent: NO !
RAND = BAD idea
RAND = BAD.
RAND a bad idea
RAND already being assumed for SVG
RAND already damaging W3C imho
RAND and Free Software
RAND and Rolalty-Free Licensing Mode
RAND arguments...
RAND bad, RF Good
RAND Comments
RAND comments.
RAND compromise
RAND considered harmful
RAND Definition
RAND direction proposal
RAND equals No Standard
RAND fees
- Robert C. Brock (Thursday, 4 October)
- ComlLoans@aol.com (Thursday, 4 October)
- HEW (Wednesday, 3 October)
- David Brenneman (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Joan Stanton (Wednesday, 3 October)
- NPPrice@aol.com (Wednesday, 3 October)
- kurttasker (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Amy Dawson (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Rob Horton (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Zach Anderson (Tuesday, 2 October)
RAND FEES ARE ROBBERY
RAND FEES!
RAND has no justifiable rationale
RAND implies more changes
RAND inclusion
RAND inconsistent with W3C Mission
RAND invalidates W3C's mission
RAND is a bad Idea
RAND is a Thought Policeman's Charter
RAND IS BAD
RAND is bad. You folks are Liars. Yes, I read it. Comments below.
RAND is incompatible with free/opensource implementations
RAND is inviting further abuse
RAND is not bad, but we're concerned about the W3C
RAND is Orwellian doublespeak
RAND is the problem
RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory
RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory!
RAND is WRONG
RAND isn't; Response misleading
RAND Licence
RAND licencing proposal
RAND licencing will re-define meaning of "standard"
RAND licencing would lead to incompatibility problems
RAND License
RAND license: no grazie
RAND licensing
RAND licensing = Bad Idea
RAND licensing and Free Software
RAND licensing is a bad idea
RAND licensing is bad
RAND Licensing is Counterproductive
RAND licensing mode bad idea
RAND Licensing Option
RAND licensing option is not sensible
RAND Licensing Policy
RAND licensing proposal.
RAND licensing should not be allowed
RAND licensing would have negative effect.
RAND objection
RAND patent licensing
RAND Patent Policy - Against
- davis (Monday, 8 October)
RAND patents
RAND Patents: A great thing
- Scott Palmer (Wednesday, 3 October)
- David Laws (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Martijn Dekker (Monday, 1 October)
- Thomas Strauss (Monday, 1 October)
- charles mcknight (Monday, 1 October)
- mark@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Monday, 1 October)
- Brent Michalski (Monday, 1 October)
- Bryan McCormick (Monday, 1 October)
- Frank Martin (Monday, 1 October)
- Paul. Knowles (Monday, 1 October)
- Matthew Gardiner (Monday, 1 October)
- Yoann Vandoorselaere (Monday, 1 October)
- Alex Simons (Monday, 1 October)
RAND Patents: A great thing <= So VERY wrong and misguided
Rand Policy
RAND policy et. al.
RAND Policy for web standards
RAND policy objection
RAND policy of W3C
RAND Policy Will Destroy The Internet
Rand policy!
RAND policy. reasonable and nondiscriminatory
RAND Proposal
RAND proposal - obsolescence of W3C
RAND Proposals
RAND RFPC
RAND vs RF patents
RAND vs Universal Access; many other loopholes
RAND will be disastrous for the web
RAND will destroy the credibility of W3C
RAND will destroy the net.
RAND Will Discredit the W3C
RAND will either kill W3C or the internet
RAND will fragment the web
RAND Will Kill Open Source
RAND will kill the W3C's future
RAND-modified: Can a clause o ETERNAL waiving of licensing fees for open-source implementations for RAND?
RAND: A Bad Thing
RAND: Misguided, Wrong
RAND: sounds like end of free web software, originator of WWW & W3C
RAND: This is the first time I've felt bad when pondering the W3.
RAND: What is reasonable?
Read your profile.......... :)
Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory ?
reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products
Reasonable license fees for reference and free implementations
Reasons not to accept patents into standards
Recall: Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards
Recent Patent Policy Framework Draft
Regarding patents
Regarding recent Patent Policy Framework draft
Regarding the Patent Policy
Regarding the proposed RAND patents
Regarding the use of patented technologies in standards
Reject RAND
Reject the Patent Policy Framework.
Reject this proposal
reject using patents as basis of any W3C standard
Request for clarification on specifics and agenda
Request for extension of comment period
Request for feedback.
Request to extend public comment period
Require royalty-free licenses for standards
Resist RAND
Responding to RAND
RESPONSE -- OPPOSE PATENTS
Response to Public Comments on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework
Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
response to RAND Patent proposal
Response to the RAND licencing proposal
Response to the response to public comments
Response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Policy Draft
Review procedure
Revised patent policy proposal
RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest
RF > RAMMED ... sorry, I screwed up a link...
RF and RAND standard policy
RF only, please.
RF vs. RAND
RF-only is much better
RF: It's not done until it's done
Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy
RIP W3
Risks to content (digital rights management) in proposed framework
Road rules aren't patented, why should protocols be?
Royalties
Royalties are discriminatory.
royalties for web standards? no !
Royalty Based Standards
Royalty fees, patents, and the web.
Royalty free ?!?
Royalty Free YES, rand NO
Royalty on Patents
Royalty-based standards
Royalty-free (RF) is the only acceptable 'compromise'
Royalty-free for GPL implementations
Royalty-free licenses, PLEASE
Royalty-free patents only, please
Royalty-free standards
royalty-free web standards
sack members
Sad
SAME! RAND clearly wrong for standards
Say It Ain't So, Joe
say no to patent
Say No To RAND
say NO to RAND licensing
Scenarios related to PPG Proposal
SchemaSoft comments on 16 Aug 2001 W3C Patent Policy Framework
Science != Bussiness
Science-based design and development
seed corn
Selling out to special interests on Patent Policy
Setting Standards for the On-line Community
SEXWEB NO.1 .. MEGAWEB-SEX !
Shame on W3c
Shame on you! More time for comments, and "NO" to W3C-sponsored abuse
Shocked
Since when is the web for sale?
Six issues
slashdot discussions
Slightly off-topic: the 'patented' technologies in SVG
So-called "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" licensing IS discriminatory ...
so...how much is Microsoft paying you?
SoftQuad Software's comments on the patent policy
Software development / ref:1603
- Info (Wednesday, 17 October)
software patents
Some of my reasons for objecting to the Patent Policy and RAND
somethin smell fishy
Something that scares me
Sorry to see this happening
- Roman (Monday, 8 October)
Standard + RAND = Monopoly
standard vs. patent
Standards
Standards and patents
Standards are for everybody - not just for companies with an IP-law and royalty budgets
Standards are to be STANDARD by Definition
standards require RF
Standards should help education
standards vs. the public
Start a home business
Stay Open
Stop
stop it RAND
Stop it Stop it!
Stop it!
Stop Paying For Porn! Join 4 Free Is Here! 27285338
Stop the RAND Fees!
Stop this... It's a shame
STRONG OBJECTION TO the inclusion of RAND
Strongly disapprove
Stupid
stupid idea
Subject: "NO" TO RAND LICENSING
Such a sad state of affairs
Suggestions for alternative procedure
Summary of 15-17 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Face-to-Face meeting available
Summary of 25 October 2001 Patent Policy WG Teleconference
supply silicon metal and magnesium ingots
Support for Chris Lilley's comments. Against licensing fees payable for W3C Web standards.
Support for Open-Source
Support only patent-free technology
Support Open Web Standards
Supporting software patents undermines credibility of W3C
SVENSKA WAYPOINT SIDAN
SVG
SVG ad inf.
SVG: "nothing at all" is better than RAND
SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it
Talkback: Will the W3C Destroy the Web
Talking Hand Held Dictionary Translator...
Thank You
Thanks
Thanks but no thanks.
The argument against patented protocols is not ideological, it is pragmatic
The Burden of Proof
The Death of the W3C Foretold
The end??
The general public will fight back
The internet should be available to the masses, not just the rich and educated
The issues
The main impetus for this may be from Microsoft
The mechanics of standards
The Once and Future Web
The Once and Future Web - a proposal
The open-source community demands the immediate withdrawal of the proposal for a new W3C Patent Policy !!!!
The Patent Policy Framework
The proposed change
The protection is needed, the patents are not
The RAND proposed in the Patent Policy Framework
The Social/Political Role of the W3C
The thin end of the wedge?
the W3C has a virus
The W3C kills oneself .
The W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft is totally unacceptable
The W3C Patent Policy undermine the W3C credibility and neutrality.
The Web is not just for business
The web used to be a truly open medium...
The web wouldent be the same
The well of ideas
the worst idea for web
there is no need for this
There Was Once a Vision of a Free Internet
They are farming us!
Think about it
Think about our great great grand children.
This developer strongly opposes "RAND" proposal
THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA
This is bad, and can't possibly work.
This is not a good idea
This is Wrong...
This must be stopped
- Terje (Wednesday, 3 October)
This says is all
Thoughts on your Patent proposal
Three substantial comments
Tim Berners-Lee [was: SVG ad inf.]
Tim Berners-Lee, what is your stance on RAND?
Time for a new W3C, this one's been hijacked
to RAND or not to RAND
Too many lawyers, not enough common sense.
triggerhappytv
Turning the W3 into an impenetrable oligarchy
Two things
uh hmmm
UK WEBCAM LIST
Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
Upcoming Patent Policy
Use of `RAND' patents
Uselicensing in W3C standards
Vague definitions involve a vague future.
VENTURE CAPITAL
Versus RAND
Voice against the use of pateneted standards on the web
Vote agains the "RAND" policy.
Vote no on rolaties
Vous vendez des vhicules
W3 recommendations covered by patent(s)
w3.org renamed to w3.com and retired
W3C
W3C - Self examination time!
W3C and the Promotion of Fee-based Standards for the Web
w3c have been like a drug broker as japanese mafia?
- tat-s (Friday, 5 October)
W3C members [was: Your RAND dreams]
W3C Must Insist on Royalty-Free patent licenses
w3c patent "policy"
W3C Patent Policy
- Claire Hitchfield (Thursday, 11 October)
- Jon Slaton (Tuesday, 9 October)
- Richard (Sunday, 7 October)
- Russ Howard (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Peter Goode (Saturday, 6 October)
- Christoph Weber (Friday, 5 October)
- Joe Glenn (Friday, 5 October)
- Michaela Merz (Friday, 5 October)
- Johannes la Poutre (Thursday, 4 October)
- Jan Peter Hecking (Thursday, 4 October)
- chgo9127@rcnchicago.com (Thursday, 4 October)
- Dylan Thurston (Wednesday, 3 October)
- J O Holloway (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Keith Winston (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Mark C. Pawson (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Daniel J. Weitzner (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Shawn Bakhtiar (Monday, 1 October)
- Richard Stallman (Monday, 1 October)
W3C Patent Policy - A Comment
W3C Patent Policy - can we please rename the W3C to USW2C!
W3C Patent Policy - FOR
w3c patent policy changes
W3C Patent Policy Comments
W3C patent policy frameword
W3C Patent Policy Framework
- Eric Backus (Sunday, 7 October)
- michael (Wednesday, 10 October)
- Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org (Monday, 8 October)
- Ricardo Signes (Friday, 5 October)
- alan.hanna@us.datex-ohmeda.com (Thursday, 4 October)
- James Lamm (Thursday, 4 October)
- bitleech@gmx.de (Wednesday, 3 October)
- bitleech@gmx.de (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Tropea, Greg (Tuesday, 2 October)
W3C Patent Policy Framework Comments
W3C Patent Policy Framework Proposal
W3C Patent Policy Framework working draft
W3C Patent Policy Recommendations
W3C Patent policy- ? why
W3C Patent Policy/RAND Licensing Agreement
W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users
- Sudhir Gandotra (Friday, 5 October)
- Federico Heinz (Thursday, 4 October)
- WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1) (Thursday, 4 October)
- user (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Nick Ambrose (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Thorsten Seitz (Tuesday, 2 October)
- Darren Blaser (Monday, 1 October)
- vma@antarix.net (Monday, 1 October)
- Alan Cox (Sunday, 30 September)
- Gene McKenna (Monday, 1 October)
W3C Patent Policy: maybe a glimpse of a bigger picture
W3C patents proposal
W3C policy
W3C Policy Breakdown
W3C position on patents / business methods
W3C proposal could allow patent grabs on standards
w3c proposal on patents
w3c RAND licence
W3C Responds
W3C should not split the WWW
W3C sows seeds of its own destruction.
W3C standards
w3c standards and patents
W3C standards shaped by members' patents
W3C standards should be free
W3C standards should remain unencumbered by patents.
W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framew ork Working Draft
W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft
W3C.....Follow The Money...
w3c: patent (entrance barrier)
WaSP to W3C: Remember Your Mission
wc3
WC3 Patent Policy
We have to ACT
We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it)
- Daniel Phillips (Monday, 8 October)
- Chris Lilley (Monday, 8 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Monday, 8 October)
- Chris Lilley (Sunday, 7 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Sunday, 7 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Sunday, 7 October)
- Claude Zervas (Sunday, 7 October)
- Jason Antony (Sunday, 7 October)
- Chris Lilley (Saturday, 6 October)
- Jason Antony (Saturday, 6 October)
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Glenn Randers-Pehrson (Friday, 5 October)
- Chris Lilley (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Friday, 5 October)
- Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (Friday, 5 October)
- Chris Lilley (Thursday, 4 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Donald Eastlake 3rd (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Joseph Reagle (Wednesday, 3 October)
- Daniel Phillips (Wednesday, 3 October)
We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND ->DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it)
wealthocracy corrupting meritocracy - funding strategy proposal
WEB infrastructure and RAND
Web page
Web Patents
Web Standards
Web Standards should avoid patents
Web standards should be free!
web standards should NOT be patented !
Web standards, W3C and others.
web-patent policy comments
Well, its been fun...
Well-intentioned but misguided ?
well..
what
What ? are you crazy
what ??
what a sham
what are you doing?!
What are you doing???
what are you thinking????
What are you, idiots?
What happened to free speech?
What he said
What if we all follow your idea
What is "reasonable" anyway?
What is reasonable?
What to do about the W3C?
What's a Standard?
WHAT????????????!!!!!!!!!!
When is RAND fair
Who do you think you are??????????
Why
Why "non-discriminatory" _is_ discriminatory
Why a RAND? W3 & Microsoft/IE --
Why are you choosing the wrong way?
Why did I have to hunt for this list?
Why do you want to go here today?
Why I have not spoken personally about the patent policy issue
Why RAND is a bad idea
Why RAND will kill the W3C
why software patents can not be non-discriminatory
Why standards then?
Why the sudden change of mind from W3C?
why the W3C should reject RAND
Will The W3C Destroy The Web?
World Wide Web Consortium - Patent Policy Working Group
World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy (RAND)
World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy Working Group
Would it be the end of W3C standards as standards ?
Wrong thing going RAND
WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed?
WWW Patent Policy
WWW Patent Policy makes same mistake as dead dot-coms
www Power Grab
www-patentpolicy-comment
www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
WWW.ZELDMAN.COM
XenoFORM
YOU are completely selfish & greedy
you guys are crazy
You guys must be nuts!
You need to rethink your preposal about patented tech.
You're digging your own grave with this...
your comment
Your Engineering web site is NOT Being SEEN!
YOUR FREE 0870 NUMBER!
Your free listing @ JabbasPalace.com
Your greed
Your policy STINKS
Your policy.
Your RAND dreams
Your Technology Sucks!
Zolera patent policy comment
~~~DO NOT PASS THE RAND POLICY ~~~
!!!
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.
私生活観察マニュアルとは・・・
ȭ ġ ~~~
Last message date: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 16:07:28 UTC