- From: Jose Fandos <jose.fandos@sonnd.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:54:58 +0100
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
I hope that this email will still be considered on time for inclusion in the public comment to RAND. There is almost no time left. I just read the story for the first time ever in a public forum a few minutes ago. About the Non-Discriminatory issue of this draft I would like to mention that it hardly serves such a purpose. It is discriminatory from the moment that it applies to everyone the same. Not everyone can afford whatever any company having a patent on one of the Recommendations of the W3C wishes to charge. I am not talking here only of Open Source projects, most of them with no income whatsoever, but of small companies too. Small garage companies that are still able to bring products to light that can compete with software powerhouses. In any event, a small company could be crushed by the bigger players by simply allowing them to issue a "non-discriminatory" fee that a small company could not afford. I do not know at this moment if there are any details in the proposal that might prevent such behaviour (no time to read). I also believe that the W3C should not involve itself with promoting "crippled" standards. The WWW has been a profound change in our society since its inception. I reckon that one of the big reasons for that has been the availability of 'unencumbered' standards for every one to use in a public medium. I can hardly imagine any software today that doesn't have, in one way or another, code that uses parts of recommendations issued by the W3C. The adoption of RAND licensed recommendations could hamper the usefulness of what the W3C has achieved until now. There is also something 'illegitimate' with the recommendation proceedings. The period for comment went unnoticed by everyone. There is proof by just looking at the replies sent to the email address that you set up for such a purpose. Since the news made it to public forums on the 29th of September you have received over 600 replies. In the previous month and a half you have hardly received none (and the ones you received were not even related). This in and on itself should at least make you think about allotting more time for public debate. If this has been brought about with any idea of righteousness or believe in success, no public scrutiny should harm it. Then again, that is probably the reason why it has gone unnoticed. I would urge the W3C that so well has serve the internet at large for some time now to reconsider this proposal or at least to listen to the public by extending the period for comments, while making an effort now and in the future to make sure that times for public opinion are really public. Jose Fandos
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 21:56:02 UTC