No to RAND

This proposal highlights the danger of the w3c as a contortium of
internet COMPANIES instead of a consortium of internet USERS. ALL
of the internet protocols that have been successful in the long run
have been open standards usable completely free of change.

A "reasonable fee" would immediately destroy 99% of the open source
implementation of the protocol -- of course, that's probably the
intent. And even a patent holder who would charge at all during
the standards-setting process would have the right to change its
mind later -- anyone here remember GIF?! Would the W3C contractually
bind pantent-holders not to do so? Would it hire the army of lawyers
necessary to enforce such contracts?

The public-good justification of patents is that the opportunity for
monopoly rents provides a necessary incentive for innovation. But there
is no lack of open innovation in the web standards arena, and therefore
public-good justification for patents.

RAND is nothing but a naked corpower-grab. VOTE IT DOWN!

Sincerely,
David Wright

Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 13:47:01 UTC