- From: Eric Fletcher <efletche@atx.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:18:50 -0400
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I've just read about the w3c's proposals for RAND licensing, apparently being considered because of pressure from some commercial organisations. In my view, if commercial organisations wish to persue their own, closed technologies, with a view to having them accepted as a de facto standard, that is very much up to them. If their work is not good enough to be adopted without the backing of an organisation such as the W3C, then, in my view, it is not appropriate for the W3C to engage in assisting them achieve this market dominance. I have observed the same kind of agreement reached at the ITU, again, through pressure from commercial organisations. The argument given then was that the ITU did not move quickly enough for them. Since that time, ITU standards have become a minefield of patented works and open works, with many companies not bothering to attempt to get a standard agreed, because the ITU is *no longer* seen as providing an even-handed standards process. Where standards are being persued, progress in many cases has completely ground to a halt (eg., ATM recommendations in SGs 15 and 13), because there are now competing commercial considerations to take into account. Standards bodies are simply not capable of handling competing commercial interests, they are not an artificial commerical marketplace, and they make a poor substitute for proper, open competition between businesses. It is likely that the RAND change being considered by the W3C will result in the same kind of legal quagmire surrounding its publications, as well as the same kind of painfully slow progress where work is going on close to the patended interests of one company or another. The ITU in fact ended up having competitions to determine which algorithm to approve in some cases - this is *no* way to write technical standards. I would strongly suggest a move back to the traditional, open, standards development process which creates a framework for companies to compete with their own offerings in a free marketplace. If individual companies wish to offer functionality *above and beyond* the requirements of a given standard, they can do so now, without any changes to licensing. Please abandon the RAND proposal - it's not good for the W3C, or for its standards, or indeed for the member organisations, or the users of the web. Eric Fletcher, Sr Unix administrator, Corecomm Inc
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 10:20:48 UTC