- From: Carsten Svaneborg <Carsten.Svaneborg@mpip-mainz.mpg.de>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:56:13 +0200
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
From http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html > Q: Is it true that you have had mixed emotions about, > if I may, not cashing in on the Web? > > Not really. It was simply that had the technology been > proprietary, and in my total control, it would probably > not have taken off. The decision to make the Web an open > system was necessary for it to be universal. You can't > propose that something be a universal space and at the > same time keep control of it. This in a few sentences captures what is the essence of the world-wide-web. The web is a common for all people, not controlled by commercial interests. This is why the web and the internet has had such an transformative effect on all levels of society. The w3c should strive above all to keep the principle of the web as a universal space for free human expression, for this is what makes the web such a powerfull means of reshaping humanity by creating a medium for free and unrestricted communication between people beyond social, national, or religious boundaries. This will not restrict companies in licensing and implementing patented technologies, but it will keep the essence of the web, the w3 standards, open for all people irregardless of whether they pay a company for browser software, or use a free (as in both speech and beer) open source browser. The existence of open source browser technology with a functionality comparable to commercial alternatives is especially important in poor and undeveloped countries, where the price of an commercial operating system + browser is an huge barrier of entry to the information society, and patent tainted web standards would only increase this gap. Nor should a democratic government ever use a non-free standard or protocol when communicating with their citizens. Closed patented standards can not be implemented in open source programs. And just as open protocols and standards are important in creating a common communication media so are free software (http://www.fsf.org) and open source for allowing people to use the medium, with software they have the freedom to modify and share with others. I have no doubt that it is very difficult to formulate a standard that does not infringe on some of the numerous overly broad trivial software patents that have been granted in the US and Europe. However, the open nature of the web is much more important than a standard. Let the commercial interests fight about which solution becomes a defacto standard, but do not give a patent tainted standard the w3c's blessing. Patents are granted by the society with the purpose of furthering innovation by giving a temporary monopoly on the industrial application of the innovation. A monopoly leads to short term increased prices, which is detrimental to society, but this should be offset by the long term benefits by the publication of the innovation and it's release after the monopoly period has ended. At least so the patent rationale of the industrial age goes. I think this would be a good time to scrutinize whether the same is true for software patents in an information society, the numerous examples overly broad trivial patents suggest the society are paying the cost of software patents, but without getting the extra innovation, that patents should yield in return. (See http://www.researchoninnovation.org/online.htm). The most obvious cost of software patents so far would indeed be tainted web standards, and that is a cost so high that it is not worth paying by anybody. -- Best regards Carsten Svaneborg Theory group at the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/~svanebor
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 10:59:14 UTC