- From: <tbreuel@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:11:07 PDT
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I found the call for comments only today, and I wanted to contribute. ==> Please note that I am not representing my employer. <== ==> These are my personal comments and observations. <== The rules on requiring disclosure of standards-related patents seem good on quick reading, and something like that should probably be adopted. However, I believe that allowing patents that are available under a RAND license into W3C standards would be a grave mistake. The W3C has a number of very powerful, large companies with comprehensive patent portfolios. Furthermore, adoption of a patented invention under RAND terms into a W3C standard could be very lucrative. The proposed change would create a strong incentive for companies to cooperate to put each other's patented inventions into W3C standards, creating a steady revenue stream to commercial members to the detriment of Web users. The proposed rules do not guard against that, and I find it difficult to imagine rules that would. The worst part of the RAND license is that it may impose payments; many Internet standards have been pioneered in free, open source implementations, often created by academics or research labs. I also believe that there is no need for such a change: there are very few patents that cannot be worked around fairly easily if they are known at the time of standards adoption. Maybe the cost is a few percent in efficiency or slightly less functionality, but most users and implementors prefer a simpler standard anyway. Furthermore, if this kind of enhanced functionality is worth it to the market, the patent holders can still build a business around it; I suspect in most cases, they would still choose to make the invention available for free and gain commercial advantage from their expertise and additional patents in the space. The policy might be workable if the RAND license exempts software distributed under "free" software licenses, like BSD, GPL, or LGPL; i.e., if payment is only required from individuals or companies that incorporate the invention into software or hardware that is commercially sold or licensed. I would still view this as a suboptimal compromise, however. What would happen if the W3C adopted this change? You can expect that every standard that includes a patented invention licensed under RAND would likely soon face an open source, free equivalent that works around the patent and does not infringe on its claims; the free equivalent may end up being somewhat less functional. We have seen the result of this kind of competition time and again: the free equivalent becomes nearly universal, even if it is slightly less functional. Sincerely, Thomas M. Breuel
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 19:11:35 UTC