- From: Darrell Parlee <darrell@parlee.net>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:27:46 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I may be a bit out of touch, because I was not aware of this deadline. Hopefully, my unqualified input still brings some value to the equation. Most of the world views patents differently than within the United States. I believe copyright (specific articulation) is more appropriate than patent (general concept) enforced compliance. A reasonable example would be for mathematical formula. Many believe a formula to hold true, whether or not its existence is known. The "discoverer" filing a patent is absurd, because the truth is inherent in the entity. It was uncovered, not created, and deserves no more protection than copyright might deliver. Specific use with a measurable guide (source code), would be sufficient to that end. I believe harm would come from enabling fee based standards via W3 approval. Standards are a method of communication, and the goal should be to enhance communication, rather than enforce restrictions upon such activities. This follows the same logic of taking a secure medium and putting in back doors to subvert original intent. This happened in the past regarding wiretap concerns. A wise choice was exercised then (by backing off), and similar approach should be taken now. Leave political ramifications to respective governments for them to sort out. Put in infrastructure enabling fair use and unrestricted communication. Don't subvert the purpose of the consortium, which is facilitating communication between independent parties. Keep the communications channel uncluttered. Remain focused on enabling communication and forget about enforcement altogether. Put sufficient flexibility in the infrastructure to assure ongoing communications, and let that same resource serve as the underpinning of higher level constructs. If you dilute your focus, then the power of the consortium will become a comical joke, that would render decisions made, useless to the general public. Should that occur, you'd find people will defy the standards, and we'd fall back into the historical void you're trying to eliminate. Standards should exist, and be adhered to for pragmatic reasons alone. If a standard serves the general good, and comes without strings attached, then it will survive and thrive. On the other hand, constraints imposed upon communication open the door for flaunting the standard, and in essence encourage people to subvert the mechanism. Don't lose sight of the global nature of the medium. Every country has differing views and perspective on their needs. Open the door to appeasing any one government, or catering the the wants of any global company, subverts the general welfare. My view is simple. Keep a pure focus on communication. Don't get side tracked into believing you must solve all the flaws of society, or you'll create a monumental task, inadequately addressed. This undermines your own credibility in the process. Drop RAND support from consideration, and focus on building inter operability without constraint. Enhance global use of communications standards by avoiding the political quagmire at all costs. I believe in the value of your efforts, but respectfully disagree with this initiative, as it is at odds with what I believe to be the greater good. Please accept this input in the spirit it was intended. Help build bridges between people, cultures, governments and countries. One world, one people, one day at a time. Thanks. -- Darrell Parlee 925.417.0590 http://www.parleesystems.com
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 14:28:17 UTC