- From: TQ White II <tq@justkidding.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:54:47 -0500
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Message-Id: <v04011701b7dcf0f6c3db@[192.168.1.100]>
There are several problems with the idea of promoting standards that require licenses and royalty fees. 1) It is inherently discriminatory on an economic basis and would likely result in social discrimination. 2) It hijacks the loyalty of the web community to standards based technologies to empower those corporations with sufficient resources to develop 'high-level' standards. 3) In will further solidify the power of large corporations to control both our internet experiences and the socioeconomic ones that are developing in the web space. 4) It will further the destructive fragementation of reliable web infrastructure services on which the development of web sites and services rely. 5) It puts the W3C in the position of determining who gets the money as they select against options in the specification of standards. 1) It is inherently discriminatory on an economic basis and would likely result in social discrimination. Some people can only afford minimal computer technology and web access. Supposing that RAND had been in place at the development of CSS. It is easy to imagine that some people would be forced, by economics, to forgo its use. This creates a class of internet users that do not have access to standard services. That class can be identified by the description 'poor'. Supposing that the W3C completes a standard on instant messaging that is a RAND standard. If the owner of that standard decides to charge for it, that will select against a category of people that cannot afford the license. Those people will be left out of that communication method. When it is used for political and other social discourse, those people will not be able to participate. Since the licensing functions will doubtless be buried inside the cost of this hypothetical very cheap system, these people may not even know about the options or have any practical choice in the matter. 2) It hijacks the loyalty of the web community to standards based technologies to empower those corporations with sufficient resources to develop 'high-level' standards. Many people in the internet technology community have, for many years, committed their economic and intellectual resources to the pursuit of internet standards. The reasons vary from the philosophical/communal to practical/shared development viewpoints. In any case, many of these people have a long history of supporting standards and avoiding the development of technical and business practices that try to exploit the standards process for economic gain. Those companies and individuals without the resources (economic, reputation or business model) to develop standards have little choice but to adhere to the standards of those that do. Since this means that, in addition to the reward of early adoption and authorship of standards, the standard creator is locked in to receipt of a long term revenue stream, commitment to the use and promulgation of standards by the internet community is a commitment to the enrichment of those that are able to create the standards. 3) In will further solidify the power of large corporations to control both our internet experiences and the socioeconomic ones that are developing in the web space. Many large corporations have strategic resources that dwarf those of the W3C and nearly everbody else. These companies can be expected to see the RAND as a potential market and marketing tool with substantial revenue consequences. This means that the full power of such organizations can be expected to bear down upon the standards process. It is reasonable to imagine that relatively unimportant standards will be pushed (with those substantial resources) under RAND only to learn sometime later that it dovetails with a major marketing initiative of that company. Other companies will be free to compete with the creator. Of course, that further enriches the creator company. Consequently, the new system organizes the standards system so that the second company into the market is at a permanent disadvantage as it feeds part of its revenue to its competitor and may serve as a disincentive to that competition. 4) It will further the destructive fragementation of reliable web infrastructure services on which the development of web sites and services rely. At present, even in the day of standards that are free, it is difficult to create a website that can reliably work with all visitors. There are many reasons that the browser and web hosting companies omit technologies that seem like they should be baseline functions. With the addition of RAND and it's inherent potential to coalesce power in the organizations with sufficient resources to develop standards, it is likely that the broad range of smaller organizations will opt against the use of certain standards because of economic or competitive grounds. Consequently, people that use those products or services may not have access to the standard. Consequently, those developing services cannot rely on those services (much as we can no longer count on the presence of Java). 5) It puts the W3C in the position of determining who gets the money as they select against options in the specification of standards. There are, at any moment, many technologies that are suitable for consideration as a standard. Instant messaging is caught between Microsoft and America Online. Which one of those gets the revenue stream? Deciding the virtue of a standard on its technical merits is a very difficult task. Adding to the consideration (even if it is explicitly disallowed) of where the money goes, will completely spoil the process. It is easy to imagine bribes, coercion, and conflicts of interest. Obviously, these potential exists for all these things today. However, the addition of large company marketing and lobbying efforts, no longer merely pro bono and based on strategic needs but turning into actual profit centers, raises the stakes and encourages intrusion of a bitter sort. It is also possible that the W3C could be the target of lawsuits when organizations believe that their explicit economic interests have been unfairly injured by a standards decision. Sincerely, TQ White II 946 N. Kenilworth Ave Oak Park, IL 60302 708/763-0100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TQ White II 708/763-0100 tq@justkidding.com http://www.justkidding.com Check out my latest addition: http://justkidding.com/politics --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 13:46:52 UTC