- From: Brian Ashe <brian@dee-web.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:44:50 -0400
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
To Whom it may concern, It is very frustrating and disappointing that I should even have to write a letter of this sort. The entire concept of the Internet, even for commercial purposes, is the interoperatability and global collaboration using standards that all parties can participate with. A lack of standards would only produce an increase in problems resulting from such. This is why organizations like the W3C are so invaluable in keeping those standards open and without restrictive measures that would hinder the development and participation regarding the World Wide Web. The allowance of "patented" software in standards would only accomplish a degradation in quality and create a "class gap" in who can implement these standards. The name of your organization should be enough to prevent such thoughts from coming to bear on the standards you put forth. The "World" does not play by the ridiculous rules and laws that corporate America has managed to restrict its citizens with and should not have to be forced by using, what I thought was, a legitimate standards organization. Any recommendations for standards should be based on their merit and should always be "open" and "free" (as in speech as well as fiscally). Allowing "patented" technology into these standards will only create a "USA vs The World" since there would be no reason for other countries to continue to adopt standards that would only be sending their money to a country where they don't even get to participate in the lawmaking process. At that point I would recommend that you create two entities. The "AWC (American Web Consortium)" and the "TROTWWWC (The Rest of the World Wide Web Consortium)" since there would no longer be a basis for considering that there actually exists a WWW. This action would also likely impugn the ability for Third World and Developing Nations to participate and grow into the concept of Internet Trade and E-Commerce since it will mean that they will be held accountable to powers of the US at levels (financially) that could be only accessible to other countries on the same level. This would be catastrophic to those nations that are working so hard to pull themselves up. I would like to point out that India has been fervently working to wards just such a goal and something like this could severely hinder those efforts because a great deal of what they are working with is Open Source and would therefore not be useful to them in a "patented" arena. Also, do we really want to bring about more issues like the "Great GIF Fiasco"? This was a ridiculous set of threats, lawsuits and court cases that did NOTHING to help build a better Internet. Though it did help develop a replacement, what did it actually accomplish. It only moved things backwards. A standards body has enough issues to deal with for trying to move forwards (and as quickly as possible in an area such as computers and communications) that bringing forth more restrictions and hindrances into such a body is just not very good practice. I realize that many of the individuals in your organization are of a corporate nature. I do see this as a positive. I think that having the corporations that will be able to contribute greatly to such an entity as the World Wide Web is an excellent example of what could make the W3C perhaps the best example of a standards body there is. But if it comes at the cost of corporate posturing and development of anti-competitive practices I think I will start looking to see if perhaps the EFF or some other organization will attempt to create an alternate standards body to represent the rest of the world as well as those corporations who realize the greater potential in keeping these standards free of biased recommendation then closing it to the select few. I understand and respect corporation's desires to protect their "Intellectual Property", but the practice of software patents was a mistake to begin with (and I am someone who creates such IP) and attempting to influence others with broken policy is horrible. If they wish to have patented protocols, implementations or other things drawn into widespread use it should be done on it's merits and ability for that company to produce and market it. Then they deserve everything they get in return. But for a standards body to allow such practice will only mean that these companies will be able to each contribute and cross-license (even if not officially) their contributions so as to "lock-out" others from even being able to participate on the WWW. The W3C should concentrate on actual standards and let "de facto" standards create themselves. Please do not let this come to reality. It would be shameful and sad. It would also cause me, as well as others I'm sure, to find no more reason to accept what you produce as practical or even acceptable and therefore would disregard it. -- Brian Ashe CTO Dee-Web Software Services, LLC. brian@dee-web.com
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 19:47:25 UTC