- From: <Darren.Schlamp@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:56:40 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I was dismayed to read that the W3 is considering allowing patented technology into future recommendations. I feel that the existence of the web is tightly linked to the presence of open standards. The most frustrating elements on the internet (for me) are those which use proprietary or patented technology - sites that only offer graphical, video or music content in formats like Flash, Quicktime, RealPlayer or Windows Media Player. Most of these require a plug-in which is only available from the owner of the technology, such as Macromedia, Apple, or Microsoft. These plug-ins are often only available for specific browsers or operating systems, and are often highly unstable. This decreases accessibility of the web, as a truly open standard, free of encumbering patents, can be independently implemented by all browsers. Today, any browser maker is free to incorporate display of .png graphic files, and any browser maker can currently include html and xml rendering in their browser. In the future, only those who are willing to pay to license technology will be able to produce a standards-compliant browser. Should the current patent recommendation be approved by the W3C, the Amaya browser will face a future where it either cannot be freely distributed, or else where it cannot implement the W3 standards. In addition, the creation of content can be more tightly controlled once patented technology is incorporated into standards. Content can only be created for many of the above-noted proprietary / patented formats by licensing the owner's software at a significant cost. If patented technology is allowed into a critical standard at some time in the future, the creation of web content could be limited to corporations, or the rich. Today, the use of open standards allows increasing use of the internet by people in the poorest countries of the world. A "reasonable" licensing fee for North Americans or Europeans may not be reasonable in many other parts of the world. The use of the internet as a communication tool will be restricted, and the voices of many prospective internet users will be drowned in a sea of license fees. Patents and royalty payments for the use of W3 standards represent a significant step towards corporate control of the internet. In addition, the policy on patent disclosures does not appear to fully close the door which Rambus used during the JEDEC development of the specification for DRAM. Any W3C member who fails to disclose patent information during development of a standard should be required AT A MINIMUM to grant a royalty-free license for all uses in relation to the W3C recommendation. RAND appears to be badly flawed, and has no place in an open standards organisation. I urge the W3C to require that only technologies available on a royalty-free basis be considered for use in future W3C Standards. Darren Schlamp
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 12:54:34 UTC