- From: <w3c-comment@terc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:42:28 -0400
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I am the senior systems and network engineer for a small nonprofit that largely does research and development in K-12 math and science education. The web plays an increasingly important role for us both in research and in delivering the results of research to the public. We depend to a great extent on open standards in general, and open source software in particular, to be able to make effective use of the web within our budgetary constraints. As I am sure you are aware, much of the most innovative and useful open source software is often, at least initially, the product of one person working in his or her spare time. Such people do not have the time or resources to deal with the barriers to entry presented by RAND licensing: if they find or even anticipate such a barrier in their path, they will too often simply find something else to do with their spare time. Discouraging innovation in this way risks stifling the main sources of new technologies and capabilities on the internet, all for the sake of providing direct financial rewards to a comparatively small number of patent holders. It is not a good tradeoff. When a company's patented technology is incorporated into a w3c standard, there is value in that, and the combined value of first-mover advantage and the imprimatur of a w3c standard can be quite significant. It is fair and reasonable to require that a company pay for that value by forgoing royalties on the patent. In short, I am opposed to the policy proposal, and I believe that if implemented, it will significantly damage innovation on the internet. ---Carl Alexander xela at terc.edu Cambridge, Mass.
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 21:42:29 UTC