- From: Jon Bendtsen <bendtsen@diku.dk>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:36:55 +0200
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Dear w3c. It's come to my attention that you intend to allow your standards to include patents. Standarts and patents do not go well in hand, just look at all the trouble with SD-ram and rambus. Lots of time and resources waisted on lawsuits, instead of creating technology. You even allow your standarts to be "deceived" the same way rambus "deceived" the SD-ram standard devellopment. See. http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-30-001-20-NW-CY who makes a writeup of your own information. "Back-door RAND If an Advisory Committee Representative to the W3C (each member organisation of the W3C has an ACR) fails to respond to requests for patent disclosures by default "they will commit their Member company to license all Essential Claims needed to implement W3C recommendations on at least RAND terms. This is true whether any personnel from the Member company participates in a WG or not." This means oversight, negligence or perhaps deception is rewarded by requiring the commitment to a RAND license rather than a royalty-free one." This doesnt sound good, it does indeed allow "Rambus software inc" to trick the other members of w3c, just like rambus the memorymaker did with the other memory makers, during the SD-ram standard devellopment. Your rules also disallow any different patent royalty payment, meaning that open source software, which has no money, and is non-profit implementations can NOT implement your standards. What a loss. The currently most used websoftware is apache, which is an open source webserver. See http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ Apache currently has just over 60% of the webserver market. This is just possible because Apache is a royalty free product. Because it is royalty free, the barrier to publish content at the internet is decreased. Rather than paying for expensive microsoft licenses to run a webserver, which recent history has shown to be insecure, they can take an apache webserver, and run it ontop of linux, bsd, or various other platforms of their choice. If apache wasnt able to implement a royalty free webserver, microsoft would properly have a much larger userbase than they do now (see netcraft) and the recent viruses would have had an even greater impact. Not all countries in the world allow software patents. The internet and thus the web, is an international thing, and not a local country matter. Almost every corner of the world is able to or already on the internet. Even if they live in a software patent free country and thus they can freely implement one of your standards, though they are patented, they cant put it on the internet, because it is also reachable from contries allowing software patents, and thus they can be sued for royalties just by using a standard. Standards should be for the public benefit, for generating improvement and devellopment for the people of the world, and not to secure one or more induviduals wealth. They are free to do so by selling a product that follows your standard, or by trying to make their product a defacto standard by getting people to use it anyway. Your change to allow one company to be the SOLE implementor of your standard. Imagian that this company gives away, or bundles this product with their other product, but still requires other implementations to pay (heavy ??) royalties. Noone else wants to implement the product, because they cant make money doing so and how can they compete with this other company giving away their product, or bundling it with another popular product ?? (can you say microsoft windows, and Internet Information Server ??) Futher more, not even the open source community can devellop a free, as in speech, or beer, product to compete with this. Thus we have a monopoly, which has 100% of the market, because it is your standard, which can be used to get a further monopoly in other markets, or increase reveny, because of the only implementation is given away for free, but the platform needed to run it costs an arm and a leg. Standards are good, but only as long as they mean everyone are free to implement and use them. Keep standards royalty and patent free. Jon Bendtsen -- Netiketten anbefaler at svar skrives nedenunder den text der svares på. http://usenet.dk/netikette/quote.html
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 07:36:58 UTC