To whom it may concern:

As an ordinary internet user, I must admit that I do not fully 
understand the implications of the RAND proposal.  However, it strikes 
me as a bad idea, and essential inimical to the w3c's goals of promoting 
interoperability and common protocols.

Quoting from section 4-4 of the PP FAQ:

"there are other technologies (typically higher level) where it might be 
appropriate to accept fee-bearing requirements in a recommendation.

NOTE: The W3C is not presently aware of any non-free patent that is 
essential to any existing W3C recommendation."

Whose interests does it serve to change at this time?  I invite the 
proponents of this policy to name those wonderful patent-encumbered 
internet technologies that we users simply cannot live without. Until 
those technologies can be named and openly discussed, the  w3c should 
play no part in promoting their use.  Surely the w3c must realize that 
their name is more valuable than the patented formats and protocols of 
some of its members.

Shawn Lindsay.

Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 16:28:47 UTC