Wednesday, 31 October 2001
Tuesday, 30 October 2001
Monday, 29 October 2001
Sunday, 28 October 2001
Saturday, 27 October 2001
Friday, 26 October 2001
Thursday, 25 October 2001
Wednesday, 24 October 2001
Tuesday, 23 October 2001
Monday, 22 October 2001
Sunday, 21 October 2001
Saturday, 20 October 2001
Friday, 19 October 2001
Thursday, 18 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Monday, 15 October 2001
Wednesday, 17 October 2001
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
Wednesday, 17 October 2001
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
Monday, 15 October 2001
Tuesday, 16 October 2001
Monday, 15 October 2001
Sunday, 7 October 2001
Monday, 15 October 2001
Sunday, 14 October 2001
Saturday, 13 October 2001
Friday, 12 October 2001
- Against the new patent policy. Simon White
- Re: Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Daniel Phillips
- Next steps in W3C Patent Policy process Daniel J. Weitzner
- "AGAINST INSANE RAND POLICY" M Mamoun
- The Social/Political Role of the W3C Brad Herman
- Web standards, W3C and others. derek lane
- Another $0.02 against. Michael Burford (GetRight)
- THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA LoreWeaver
- No patents or license rights on the web! Jack Martinez
- Patent policy comment hogarth
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> John Taylor
- www-patentpolicy-comment Randolph Vail
- Patents and standards El-Gayar, Omar
- RAND rdean71@cs.com
- ACTIVADORES BIOLGICOS PARA ELIMINAR OLORES. PUBLICIDAD! !PUBLICIDAD
- I realize this is a bit late... Seairth Jacobs
- RAND IS BAD John Dooley Road Runner
- PC FLORIPA Informtica - Tudo para seu computador PC FLORIPA Informtica
- Don't do it ! Jean-Yves Delort
- Protect your life ! protect@life-protect.com
- Plese, no RAND!! Marco Maggesi
- Re: A query about RF Chris Lilley
- 10 8 14:00ÿ ߴٴϱ.. ^^v top
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- RAND Comments August Zajonc
- asda nepp@df.copm
- asda nepp@df.copm
- Opinion Dominic Ringuet
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- Vague definitions involve a vague future. Edward Champion
- Opinion on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft M Birch
- Meta4z.com Website Giveaway! will
- Additional thoughts against RAND (long, rambling, possibly incoherent) Tony Sellers
- Additional thoughts against RAND (short) Tony Sellers
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Tim Bray
- Re: "RAND" policy Jason Antony
- Re: A query about RF Jason Antony
- RF-only is much better Anant Sahai
- Re: Comment on W3C's proposed (RAND) Patent Policy Jason Antony
- Policy is self-contradictory and could sideline W3C Mark Shewmaker
- What are you, idiots? Jorey Bump
- RAND vs Universal Access; many other loopholes Neal McBurnett
- I'm opposed to the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing option John White
- Electronic Frontier Foundation comments Seth David Schoen
- Opposition to RAND Patent Policy Amit Sahai
- Comment on W3C's proposed (RAND) Patent Policy John L. Males
- New T-shirts screenprints with original art Forrest Bass
- Reject the Patent Policy Framework. Brock Frazier
- On the W3C and Openness... Joe Crawford
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- Attn: the W3C Jason Antony
- SchemaSoft comments on 16 Aug 2001 W3C Patent Policy Framework Philip Mansfield
- Protect yourself ! info@life-protect.com
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards Paul H. Smith
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
Thursday, 11 October 2001
- Love of w3c vs. Devotion to free software tom@croft.tc
- Uselicensing in W3C standards Mike McCune
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- Recall: Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- Re: HP's Proposal for Royalty Free W3C Standards BELL,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex6)
- SoftQuad Software's comments on the patent policy Lauren Wood
- RAND Jon Snader
- Patent Policy Framework draft and RAND weston
- seed corn William Loughborough
- NO royalty on WWW Seung Hyun Kim
- Patent is not standard 서돈키호테
- an extraordinarily bad idea Matthew Walker
- A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy (reformatted) Paul Levy
- XenoFORM XenoFORM team.
- Patent Policy Disaster Tex Horning
- Royalty-free patents only, please Allen Smith
- Apple Computer's Statement on the Draft W3C Patent Policy Wanda Cox
- A Comment on the Proposed Patent Policy and the ensuing controversy Paul Levy
- Patent Policy Gregory Catalone
- Oppose Patents Mark Bartlett
- RAND Proposals Alex Hogarth
- Comments Patrick Chapman
- RAND considered harmful rand.w3c@bernard-hugueney.org
- Iper1 per l'e-commerce blumoda@tiscalinet.it
- Meta4z.com Website Giveaway! will
- Patent Policy Mark Maloney
- Contribution to W3C consultation Charles Stewart
- Patent Policy Draft nucleus
- Future High Level Functionality Mark Johnson
- Patent Policy Feedback Phillip Fox
- Last day of comments, nothing changed Daniel Phillips
- PATENTS & THE WORLD WIDE WEB Jonathan Bullen
- NO! Ryan Guenther
- RAND bad, RF Good R. Steven Rainwater
- About the patent policy in W3C web standards Luca Saiu
- Proposed RAND Licensing arrangements Wally Pratt
- Re: Don't drown the spirit of generosity. Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Fatal Weaknesses of the Patent Disclosure Rules: and the Unocal P atent Debacle Peter DiMauro
- Patent Policy Framework draft Nancy Massey
- "RAND" policy Steve Summit
- Request for feedback. David Woodhouse
- Anasil - software network analyzer Anasil
- Hi from Nick of 6 ,fuller ave newdynamic
- Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Michel Debar
- patent policy Tarun Ramakrishna Elankath
- Proposed RAND licensing arrangements Mike Brodbelt
- patents on the web Oz Barron
- Opposition to RAND Proposal Glenn Elliott
- Patent Policy Framework draft Svein Pedersen
- Patented Internet standards are wrong John Hansknecht
- Don't drown the spirit of generosity. Rory Ewins
- Re: Mozilla.org response to the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Lee T S
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
Thursday, 11 October 2001
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
Thursday, 11 October 2001
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
Wednesday, 10 October 2001
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
Monday, 8 October 2001
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
Monday, 8 October 2001
Tuesday, 9 October 2001
Monday, 8 October 2001
Wednesday, 17 October 2001
Monday, 8 October 2001
- Essential Claim question Noble, Lisa
- Comments Jon Wiley
- Open Web! John Abbe
- comments on proposals Lisa Lorenzin
- Eurolinux statement on W3C RAND proposal Stefane Fermigier
- RAND licensing John Carey
- New forums/massage-board. Please join now! this-is-the-shit
- New forums/massage-board. Please join now! this-is-the-shit
- please don't Joe Desbonnet
- patent policy Daniel Webb
- Patents are damage Steven W McDougall
- Royalties Mariner's Loft
- Disagreement with new Patent Policy draft Paul Erickson
- W3C Patent Policy Framework working draft Bob Goates
- Patent Policy Framework Rob Simmons
- DON"T RECOMEND RAND Kyle Cranmer
- the W3C has a virus Robert Stockmann
- Bad Idea mplemmons@ee.net
- Disagree with RAND license Arnaud Vaneste
- Patent Policy draft Massimo, Tiziana e Federica
- say NO to RAND licensing N.Oden
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Please do not stop innovation in its' tracks Mason Miller
- policy ht
- Do not cater to the large corporations Carolyn Hillman
- Sorry to see this happening Roman
- "Non-discriminatory" commercial licenses impossible Adrian Tymes
- Patented standards are not standards. chris.gamble@CPBINC.com
- RAND is a bad Idea Karl Doblinger
- Please Rethink Your Policy Hythian
- Free Software compatibility Dmitry Borodaenko
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Douglas Holt
- The RAND proposed in the Patent Policy Framework Yves Savourel
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- RAND Patent Policy - Against davis
- No thanks Morten rsted, [MOCH]
- Re: Six issues Jim Sansing
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Christopher.J.Albertson@aero.org
- WaSP to W3C: Remember Your Mission Steven Champeon
- RAND Ryan Rajpaul
- Comment BEN BARRAZA
- If you love them, then run to them. nopatents@onmyweb.com
- Patent Policy Dhruva Reddy
- Comments to "In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model" Martin Olsson
- Why RAND will kill the W3C Mark Mumford
- wc3 Lorntz
- Patent Policy Comment Andrew Meredith
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> CoyoteinCA@netscape.net
- Draft proposal allowing Patents in W3C standards Josh Fryman
- Six issues arle lommel
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Don't do it. Bill Evans
- PATENTS John Seago
- Keep the Web (Royalty) Free Mark Anderson*INTERACTIVE*
- Objection to RAND Stuart Gaunt
- The Patent Policy Framework Diego Lunetta
- in support of patent-free standards Tom Garcia
- w3c RAND licence laurent
- The W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft is totally unacceptable Toby Perkins
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Thomas Longuemart
- Don't do it! Ostergaard, AJ
- In support of EFF's call for a royalty-free licensing model Peter Magnusson
- well.. Gilbert Fernandes
- Re: RAND & W3C Standards Daniel Phillips
- Stop Michael Wood
- Patent Policy Working Group Ricardo Campos
- Patent Policy Framework draft John Billings
- common sense valko yotov
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Michael Clarke
- RAND will either kill W3C or the internet David Jander
- RAND Policy Will Destroy The Internet Aaron Swenson
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND ->DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) chuck weinberger
- bad idea bwg
- Patent Policy on web standards - my concerns simeon.morgan@ideas.com.au
- Patent policy is madness Ignacio Torres Masdeu
- Vote no on rolaties bink
- comments Alice Corbin
- patents: whaddyew, crazy? Ray Gulick
- Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory ? La Place
- RAND J
Sunday, 7 October 2001
Monday, 8 October 2001
Sunday, 7 October 2001
Saturday, 6 October 2001
Sunday, 7 October 2001
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
Sunday, 7 October 2001
Saturday, 6 October 2001
Sunday, 7 October 2001
Saturday, 6 October 2001
Thursday, 4 October 2001
Saturday, 6 October 2001
Friday, 5 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Friday, 5 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Thursday, 4 October 2001
Friday, 5 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Friday, 5 October 2001
Saturday, 6 October 2001
Friday, 5 October 2001
- RAND = BAD idea Darren Blaser
- RAND is incompatible with free/opensource implementations Filipe Santos
- No to patents Charles McPhate
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Chris Lilley
- say no to RAND licensing Chad K. Bisk
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- You're digging your own grave with this... Jeppe Cramon
- W3C Patent Policy/RAND Licensing Agreement BlakGard@aol.com
- RAND RFPC 1 1
- open standards are the best way to encourage innovation and interoperability Tim Edwards
- Additional sources of commentary that I believe the W3C should know about Jesper Juhl
- Just say no larfx@ticnet.com
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- RAND Phil Reardon
- Patent Policy Ronny Krashinsky
- Re: RAND Policy Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Comments on W3C patent policy Paul Schreiber
- W3C Patent Policy Joe Glenn
- May you please consider revising your draft? gjldp@iquebec.com
- RAND Definition Curtis Weyant
- RAND Policy al.gaspar@lrn.va.gov
- W3C Patent Policy Michaela Merz
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy Working Group Phillip Smith
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Peter Haight
- Just Say No to RAND Licensing Bob Glover
- Patent Policy Working Group Rick Brady
- Don't allow standards to be encumbered by patents TOM HAVILAND
- Patent Policy Framework draft Jim Jinkins
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Daniel Phillips
- Proposal for defining acceptability of RAND licensing model. David Woodhouse
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- Public comment on the Patent Policy Framework Larry Bezeau
- Patent Policy Framework draft Matt Michaelsen
- RAND scott schmidt
- RAND Licence Arnaud Vaneste
- Good Idea, make the already big companies BIGGER! Freedome On the NET
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- RAND licensing is a bad idea Patrick Hoogendijk
- Patent Policy Comment Tuomas Pellonpera
- against RAND Alexander Nakhimovsky
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Royalty-free licenses, PLEASE Pugsley Donald E CRBE
- w3c have been like a drug broker as japanese mafia? tat-s
- Patent Policy Bill Bland
- RAND Licensing Policy Alik Widge
- Not a GIF-issue again...please Henrik Olsson
- RAND licensing would have negative effect. Perttu Puska
- On the use of Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory fees Itamar Shtull-Trauring
- Comments on the new patent-policy Egil Moeller
- RAND license: no grazie Andrea Montefusco
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Giuliano Carlini
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Daniel Phillips
- Patent policy draft: DNAR? Cedric Degea
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1)
- World Wide Web Consortium Patent Policy (RAND) G.M. von Hippel
- Comment to RAND Andreas Huennebeck
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- comments RAND licensing Manegold
- concerns from Poland Adam Kightley
- Some of my reasons for objecting to the Patent Policy and RAND Jesper Juhl
- RAND Steven Wallace
- RE: [WD]: Patents on Web Standards - dropping the petition S.Marshall@open.ac.uk
- RAND Policy sattanino
- The issues Paolo Campanella
- Patents not in the best interest of the web community Kurt L. Sussman
- Patents will kill the standards Bruno VERNAY
- Patent Policy disapproval Bob Evans
- Would it be the end of W3C standards as standards ? xavier
- [FWD: Please keep "RAND" out of W3 standards] DspitzDan@netscape.net
- No RAND licensing W. A. Winn, D.D., Ph.D.
- W3C members [was: Your RAND dreams] Jason Antony
- No RAND licensing FreemanAZ@aol.com
- Gartner's viewpoint Jason Antony
- Please re-think patent policy. Elliott Kirschling
- Proposed RAND Policy Glenn Jacobson
- RAND patents Greg Reagle
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- just say no Daniel Pirone
- Patents and Standards: two competing philosophies kevingmoore
- Absurd Patent Policy Howard Christeller
- NO to RAND Matthias Urlichs
- Standards Kamil Jonca
- PPF draft Rick Potthoff
- non-free patents have no place in w3c standards David Kimdon
- Re: Comment on WC-3 Patent Policy Dick Byrd
- RAND is a Thought Policeman's Charter Derek Lewis
- RAND comments. Greg Wilkins
- RAND: Misguided, Wrong Shamim Mohamed
- Patents violate founding principle of w3.org Bill Gallagher
- This says is all Tom Hood
- why the W3C should reject RAND Andrew Hagen
- Voice against the use of pateneted standards on the web vik@econz.co.nz
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> JTM
- Patent Policy Framework Draft td
- patent policy reponse Zach Welch
- Attack on democracy? Martin Leisener
- Patents have no place in standards Gavin Treadgold
- What ? are you crazy David Boosalis
- Why are you choosing the wrong way? Juan R. Pozo
Thursday, 4 October 2001
Friday, 5 October 2001
Thursday, 4 October 2001
- Reject RAND Shiraz Kanga
- Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Dave Reeve
- W3C Patent policy- ? why Michael Guercio
- Patent compromise? Tim Mensch
- Royalty on Patents Jeremy Conn
- patent inclusion in W3C standards Doug Hunt
- Fork to gnuStandards if the W3C hurts the web mark_tracey@yahoo.com
- No software patents through the back door Alexander List
- www-patentpolicy-comment Matt Kasdorf
- Please Reject the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Chris Geanious
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> gte592n@prism.gatech.edu
- Your Technology Sucks! CharlesAdams14@aol.com
- :( CharlesAdams14@aol.com
- The W3C Patent Policy undermine the W3C credibility and neutrality. TISCALI
- Comment on patent policy Lowell Harris
- Opposition to the incorporation of licensed technology- an example from the Airlines Justin Seiferth
- Idiot notion to include patented technology in web standards FDWeller on Qwest
- Think about our great great grand children. Charles Esson
- Opposed to Patents in Web Standards SuperLinux
- RAND Terry Bailey
- RAND Curt Wuollet
- comment on RAND Russell Uman
- Free Internet, Free Standards misterl@primusnetz.de
- FEES Bert Veldhuizen
- RAND is a bad idea Ray Benjamin
- No Patents J. Ramsey
- Open the W3C to developers or the developers will found a new W3C !!! TISCALI
- Application Developer Arlen A. Greer
- W3C Patent Policy Johannes la Poutre
- "Standards" driven by profit? Sounds proprietary to me! Jesse W. Asher
- YOU are completely selfish & greedy Howard Smith
- Do I understand this issue? Dietrich, Joseph
- Patent Policy Emery, Pat
- patent policy cheeser@ionet.net
- I oppose patented standards James
- Clarity is key Joe Chellman
- FTC denied Dell patent rights to VESA VL bus in 1996 Jim Davies
- RAND bordcon@earthlink.net
- This developer strongly opposes "RAND" proposal Cole Thompson
- Re: NO STANDARDS WITH PATENTS donald.hohman@pncbank.com
- keep it open please PISINI, JOHN E
- Go for it Carlos Méndez
- RAND fees Robert C. Brock
- W3C Patent Policy Jan Peter Hecking
- Avoid schism -- for the sake of the W3C Michael Welles
- Had to happen sooner or later craig
- Don't be insane! Chris Pollard, CRC
- I recognize only royalty-free standards Scott Johnston
- Public Comments Aaron Carr
- W3C policy Mirko Kloppstech
- Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Federico Heinz
- Fees on standars, Patents on standars -> BAD IDEA Antonio Arauzo Azofra
- Re: No Paul Winkler
- If WSDL doesn't qualify as low-level infrastructure, this is hopeless Mark Wutka
- Long live open information! Imre Simon
- Comments on Patent Policy Framework draft Jonathan Day
- RESPONSE -- OPPOSE PATENTS Mark Interrante
- W3C patents proposal Simon Kitching
- PPF contradicts W3C's own mission. Thomas Jedenfelt
- standard vs. patent Anoop Sarkar
- RAND is bad. You folks are Liars. Yes, I read it. Comments below. Cameron Miller
- Disgraceful Marcelo Finger
- Opposed to proposed patent policy shopbot
- W3C harry burton
- Proposal for clarification of RAND licence definition. David Woodhouse
- Re: public opinion on W3C Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Importance of Interoperability and the effects of non RF licenses danielv@netvision.net.il
- Please: Keep the Internet Royalty Free! Tobias Benedikt Hoevekamp
- Patents and the WWW Chris Brand
- no RAND Alan Bol
- Re: Incorporating proprietary formats in any recommendation is a BAD idea! Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- keep standards free and open Chip & Debby Piller
- Zolera patent policy comment Frederick Hirsch
- I stand in opposition to RAND cglasser@dotcast.com
- RAND is inviting further abuse John Telford
- Re: public opinion on W3C Pierre Phaneuf
- Latest patent drafts Bas Burger
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Kai Henningsen
- Feedback on the RAND policy Eric Johnson
- Eliminate RAND option from new patent policy, only allow RF David G. Durand
- Stop this... It's a shame Juvenal A. Silva Jr.
- Against standards incorporating 'patented' technology Enrique A. Chaparro
- Against Patent Policy Framework and RAND Ken Seikel
- W3C standards William Kramer
- Incorporating proprietary formats in any recommendation is a BAD idea! Bruce Heerssen
- RAND fees ComlLoans@aol.com
- Patent Policy Framework Michael Gbadebo
- Re: SVG Steve Cox
- No Jeffrey Foran
- RAND is Orwellian doublespeak Peter Lawson
- W3C Patent Policy Framework alan.hanna@us.datex-ohmeda.com
- open standards. D. Jeff Dionne
- In strong opposition to RAND J. Maynard Gelinas
- Your RAND dreams Dean William Schaf
- Kees heeft mijn naaktfotos op fotovanmijnex.nl gezet! Claudia Evers
- Web Standards should avoid patents Yaron M. Minsky
- Kees heeft mijn naaktfotos op fotovanmijnex.nl gezet! Claudia Evers
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- SVG: "nothing at all" is better than RAND F J Franklin
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> James Ferguson
- Re: W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1)
- patent policy comment Brock Organ
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Chris Lilley
- what ?? JIMBOB
- Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework draft Michael Thome
- w3c patent policy framework James Lamm
- "Lower-layer infrastructure" needs clarification, timing stinks Jeffrey Zeldman
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Adam Warner
- RAND policy objection Eric Johnson
- Re: SVG Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: public opinion on W3C Chris Lilley
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Standards and patents Alan Mitchell Durham
- RAND licensing mode bad idea Paul Caton
- NO -- NEVER Parkison, Ron
- patents unacceptable in open standards George M. Sipe
- Re: Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Chris Lilley
- No. Matthew G. Saroff
- Re: Adoption of RAND license Meers M Oppenheim
- w3c shadowdaemon@earthlink.net
- Re: public opinion on W3C Pierre Phaneuf
- Re: SVG Chris Lilley
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Chris Lilley
- SVG F J Franklin
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- RAND Bob Hogan
- W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Sean McPherson
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: public opinion on W3C Chris Lilley
- Re: Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Prosperi.T
- YOUR FREE 0870 NUMBER! HERE IT IS!
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- Re: Apple's SVG patent Chris Lilley
- This is bad, and can't possibly work. Justin Bell
- there is no need for this Robert Ellis
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Chris Lilley
- public opinion on W3C Pierre Phaneuf
- Licensing mathematics - Apple patent Jozef Halbersztadt
- Think about it david mills
- Rand Policy Richard Gregoire
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Jason Antony
- Re: Is Apple's patent valid? Adam Warner
- Is Apple's patent valid? Jason Antony
- OK... Jean-Philippe Moins
- Shocked Chris Howells
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Thomas Clavier
- Why standards then? Raphael Bauduin
- Further objections, and question for Janet Daly Jeremy Sanders
- The thin end of the wedge? Alan Hartley-Smith
- Web standards should be free! jonas persson. [artopod]
- Comments Andy Macdonald
- Just agreeing with a lot of people on Slashdot, and other places Martyn Ranyard
- Legal infrastructure in a W3C recommendation ? Alexandre Vitrac
- Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal Jason Antony
- Royalty free ?!? Beretta Paolo
- Re: W3C Patent Policy - FOR Jason Antony
- W3C Patent Policy chgo9127@rcnchicago.com
- problem #1: the authors Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de
- Opposing sections 4 and 5 Mathias.Picker@virtual-earth.de
- No e-patents at W3C ! Mathias BAVAY
- Comment Matteo Brancaleoni
- Re: [fairuse-discuss] Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Brooklyn Linux Solutions
- Patents Policy darrylb@iprimus.com.au
- Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal Daniel Phillips
- RAND equals No Standard Roberto Gliese
- Why "non-discriminatory" _is_ discriminatory Pavel Roskin
- Non-discriminatory - I don't thnk so Nik Jewell
- Re: The Once and Future Web - a proposal Jason Antony
- Patents on W3C Standards john.wilson@countryenergy.com.au
- Comment Tobias von Mangoldt
- comments tim
- Can't agree Kitada Naruhide
- I don't like it Wojtek
- Re: The Once and Future Web Daniel Phillips
- VENTURE CAPITAL Malik Madaki
- comment Laurent Klinger
- Comments on Janet Daly's statement Richard Stallman
- No Bourzeix, Stephane
- Why RAND is a bad idea Walter Dnes
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Thursday, 4 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Thursday, 4 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Thursday, 4 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
- The protection is needed, the patents are not Les Barstow
- Re: Learn from recent history. Daniel Phillips
- RAND Will Kill Open Source Anna Au
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Sandip Sarma
- Opposition William Stookey
- It shouldn't be done Guille -bisho-
- RAND Will Discredit the W3C Jon G. Booth
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- RAND pulsj1018@aol.com
- Objection zazen
- Box cutters found in WWW Prasad Kommoju
- RAND arguments... Golden Tiger
- Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Donald Eastlake 3rd
- Re: [fairuse-discuss] Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Jay Sulzberger
- W3 recommendations covered by patent(s) Tor Slettnes
- patent policy vs open source and free software Matthieu Herrb
- No to RAND Ahmad Sofyan
- Your greed Mike & Anisa Golden
- web patents Mark Groen
- We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Joseph Reagle
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Rik van Riel
- RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory! guinevere liberty
- ~~~DO NOT PASS THE RAND POLICY ~~~ Russell Pankratz
- A bad idea WoodKR@ugcorp.com
- Apple's SVG patent #US5379129 Daniel Phillips
- Do you think about stuff? Hippieman
- stop it RAND Carmine Monte
- RAND fees Joan Stanton
- The internet should be available to the masses, not just the rich and educated Robert Thomas
- No RAND Policy! Erik Parris
- software patents Lou Cephyr
- We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it) Daniel Phillips
- Re: "forked" standards base Daniel Hellerstein
- The web used to be a truly open medium... Martin Sammtleben
- No Rand for Me the head lemur
- I do not support this RAND proposal W.D.Wiseman
- RAND D J Richert
- Fees Mark K. Muma
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Ryan Connor
- Comment Jim Henson
- uh hmmm April Neibarger II
- Re: Money Grubbing Daniel Phillips
- GIF royalties Thomas Ingledew
- RAND don@solderquik.com
- if (RAND) { delete W3C; W3C = NULL; W3C = new CElection } Larry Dobson
- RAND Policy Brad Coburn
- Good intentions is the road to hell paved with Valentine Iourine
- Responding to RAND Simon Brooke
- reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products bill wirt
- Re: Learn from recent history. Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- No!! RAND! Cameron Fry
- RAND Jon Doe
- Paying to develop the Web? Jeremy McPeak
- What are you doing??? William C. \(Bill\) Thames
- RAND is the problem Dr E B Bettler
- Learn from recent history. Martin C S Gauffin
- Just don´t do it Jonas Myrenås
- Re: W3C patent policy Dylan Thurston
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing Scott Palmer
- Rand Greg
- This must be stopped Terje
- Stop Scott Palmer
- destruction of the web... Charles McCray
- Fee's Don C Livingston
- STUPID Robert Lee Peeler
- How dare you! Mary Ayala
- Your policy. Russell Thomas
- Patented Standards? John Richter
- Re:%20IETF%20Patent%20Policy Carl Beehler
- Don't make the wrong move on patents Luke Melia
- RAND Micheal E. Barkley
- Bad Idea Mark Cunningham
- Patent Policy Framework Mike Shea Jr
- Patents and Standards Cartier, Philip
- IETF Patent Policy Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- RAND keymaker
- RAND John-Houston Design & Implementation
- Negative Feedback James Berryhill
- W3C proposal could allow patent grabs on standards John Napolitano
- Another sin of CAPITALISM Mike Guerrette
- Will the W3C Destroy the Web? Steven Bell
- Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF Glenn Randers-Pehrson
- The web wouldent be the same Andreas Knapp
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Pascal Desroche
- Rand Policy Jesse S Housman
- Talkback: Will the W3C Destroy the Web Friou Deming
- What happened to free speech? Harger, Stacia
- Stop the RAND Fees! ChnlSrfr@aol.com
- stupid idea Gary Powell
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Rik van Riel
- RAND Fees NPPrice@aol.com
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> osmar
- Re: The Once and Future Web Daniel J. Weitzner
- Fwd: Patent Policy Comment TRUassayist1@aol.com
- The Once and Future Web Michael Rose
- A question. JKelly
- nondiscriminatory (RAND) fees for Web-standard products. Lee
- What if we all follow your idea Pål Wester
- do not tax the Web Bob Caron
- RAND policy. reasonable and nondiscriminatory James Stanton
- RAND FEES! Roy Harrington
- Charing for web products NoSpam
- Once in a lifetime chance, please read. President of Vallke Solutions - Velius D'Unnero
- Objection - Impossible for Small Businesses Jenny Ono Suttaby
- Opposition to proposed RAND policy gavin
- My objection to the patent policy S.Marshall@open.ac.uk
- Mine field of software patents Rob Carmichael
- Do not do this emmet obrien (BI)
- Fees......... MyCrowsSoft
- W3C.....Follow The Money... Christopher M. Strehl
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Pawel Kowalski
- Patent Policy review David Leslie
- RAND isn't; Response misleading Russell Marks
- BAD BAD IDEA!!!!! RAND FEES...NOOOOOOOOO ilikechet
- Patent Comments Bryan - ECS Inc.
- SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it sup sup
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Peter Adamson
- W3C Patent Policy Framework bitleech@gmx.de
- W3C Patent Policy Framework bitleech@gmx.de
- Re: W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Jason Antony
- Patentented Standards Are Harmful David C Thompson
- RAND fees kurttasker
- Re: Stop it Stop it! Jason Antony
- (obvious) Michael Shigorin
- Patents have no place in web standards Joe Chellman
- RAND luke carter
- They are farming us! Erik Sigra
- Money Grubbing Paul Pollard
- NO to RAND Fees Rob Kerr
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Richard Stallman
- No patents on WWW Kenneth Geisshirt
- RAND Tom McDonald
- RE: Forbid RAND, require open source compatibility; W3C mission DEMANDS it Theo de Raadt
- RAND will destroy the net. Sergey Tiraspolsky
- Forbid RAND, require open source compatibility; W3C mission DEMANDS it David Wheeler
- Re: A plot to destroy W3C Daniel Phillips
- no RAND CHARGES. justin prince
- Insanity Justin Moore
- what Derek Moore
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Dan Mordan
- Stop it Stop it! Carol
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> ED Summers
- w3c bill francis
- Followup to your response: RAND is BY DEFINITION discriminatory Seth Delackner
- RAND fees Amy Dawson
- One last comment... Steve Smith
- Rand policy! Louis Barlow
- Shame on W3c Matt Mason
- RAND FEES ARE ROBBERY CRAIG FREEMAN
- patent policy Mark Kot
- W3C Patent Policy - A Comment Steve Smith
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Greg Wastek
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Brian K. Hill
- RAND Shawn Tempesta
- the worst idea for web L. Watkins
- Incompatible with GPL Ian Bicking
- NO Daniel Blum
- Charges? Rick Oldfield
- Jerks Larry
- you guys are crazy Christopher Doris
- patent policy Jack Nagel
- Patent Policy Randy Chase
- My view of the new standard that some jerks are trying to force on the rest of us bryancox2
- Your policy STINKS Me at Hotmail
- Patent Policy Review Period Extended Tim Sweeney
- RAND fees Rob Horton
- RAND policy of W3C Alan Shalloway
- The Death of the W3C Foretold Nigel Blackwell
- A plot to destroy W3C Jacek Piskozub
- w3c John Mobley
- W3C standards should remain unencumbered by patents. L. Adrian Griffis
- HERE TODAY - GONE TOMORROW? Dawn M. Burian
- Resist RAND Daniel Hartmeier
- Patent Policy Framewrok Joshua
- why software patents can not be non-discriminatory Todd L Miller
- Re: Comments Jason Antony
- The end?? Jeff Wulfekuhl
- Patent policy James Schneider
- Against RAND, patents and lawyers Jacques Pelletier
- Late but furious Terry Laurenzo
- Objection David J. Ruck
- comments Michael Kale
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
Wednesday, 3 October 2001
Tuesday, 2 October 2001
- RAND-modified: Can a clause o ETERNAL waiving of licensing fees for open-source implementations for RAND? Antonio Rafael Dias Teixeira
- W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users Thorsten Seitz
- 100% Open Standards John Billings
- Thank You Abe Milde
- patent-response Alan Langford
- "forked" standards base Chuck Adams
- Entirely Against Patent Policy... astajko1@tampabay.rr.com
- Re: RAND Toni Mueller
- comments on W3C's Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Angelos D. Keromytis
- My concerns Jim Agan
- Don't emasculate the W3C Keith MacLeod
- Royalty fees, patents, and the web. Daniel Joyce
- On RAND and patents Michiel Toneman
- Comments on Patent Policy Draft Andrew Fowler
- Re: [Patents] Richard Stallman re: W3C Patent Policy Rik van Riel
- Patent-free standards Matthew Rubenstein
- W3C standards shaped by members' patents sue butler
- I am appalled that the wc3 is going to patent w3c elements - whose bright idea was/is this? hp
- Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Jay Gaeta
- When is RAND fair Dr. David Alan Gilbert
- Oh. You want to destroy the Internet. Thomas Ritter
- Bad idea. Dave Brasington
- Re: RAND already being assumed for SVG mark@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk
- An open standard is only open if it's free Simon Brooke
- Re: Patent Policy Ken Martin
- Proposed Patent Policy Framework Craig Saila
- Patent Policy (Read: RAND) Troy Muller
- Is the headline: W3C embraces Patent Office policies? Rodney Smith
- RE: W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Andy Chase
- Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Sam Schillace
- RAND Dave MacKinnon
- A Patent is not a standard. Standards are Open. Patents are not. Adam Hull
- Patents and Standards Niall Walsh
- RAND George Smith
- W3C Patent Policy Keith Winston
- RAND compromise Jim Jewett
- Response to Public Comments on Patent Policy Framework Working Draft ed@alcpress.com
- W3C patent policy frameword Ian Clarke
- Free Standards are the foundation of the Internet Keith T. Kyzivat
- Patent Policy torsten
- Patent Effects David Callele
- NO W3C PATENTS. Open standarts sholud remain open. Stan Podin
- Reasonable license fees for reference and free implementations Daniel Barkalow
- RAND is Unreasonable and Discriminatory Bob Bushman
- patent and standard are contradictory Long, Richard J
- freedom? Todd T. Fries
- Re: Response to Public Comments on the W3C Patent Policy Framework tz1@mac.com
- Re: RAND invalidates W3C's mission Magali Tranié
- maintain free and open interoperability P.J. Ponder
- comment on patent policy Kannan Vijayan
- Re: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? John Cowan
- patent policy comments landon dyer
- Patent Policy Comments Michael Frankel
- RAND has no justifiable rationale Rich Salz
- on Patent Policy Framework draft volodya@mindspring.com
- Innovation and incentive do not require patents Jeremy Petzold
- no commercial ownership of web mike
- Comment on the Patent Policy Framework draft Steve Newman
- Re: Concerns over aspects of PPF Bruce Williams
- Re: Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Alan Truesdale
- Proposed Patent Policy will not benefit the w Richard M
- Patent Policy Comment/Remarks Alex Dark
- Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest Chris Worley
- lawyers & epitaphs Brian Cort
- Royalty-free standards Mark Schult
- RE: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- NO to RAND Bob
- Patent Police Heiko Garrelts
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Charles Hixson
- NO STANDARDS WITH PATENTS John Robertson
- RAND invalidates W3C's mission Dave Reeve
- Royalty-free for GPL implementations Xavier Bestel
- New RAND policy K Briscoe
- Patent Policy - Standardizing patented tech only supports the cor porations Dillow, Barrett
- Potential Anti-trust issues with new rulling... Doug Smith
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Robert Dean
- Patent Response John J. Deighan
- RAND - feeding corporate greed. Geoff Wong
- ciao W3C Xavier Bestel
- Patent Policy Gavin Kerr
- Re: RF > RAMMED * Deadline extension? * W3C should serve the PUBLIC interest Chris Worley
- Patent Policies Armstrong.Steven
- Patents within standards Michael Atkins
- No patents Roland
- Patents and Standards erik_nelson@freddiemac.com
- Patent policy comment Ami Ganguli
- "Non-discriminatory" patents will kill the web Charles Cazabon
- W3C Patent Policy Mark C. Pawson
- No. Joe Kaczmarek
- Comments on W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Nigel Wetters
- Comments Gabriel Gonzalez
- [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none> Neil Watson
- patent policy Bryan Dougherty
- Patent Policy Jason Giglio
- Patented Product Lines as Standards. Jesse Klug
- WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed? Jonathan Borden
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Robert Koch
- RAND Anthony Watson
- Against Patent Policy Framework Michael Hartle
- W3C Patent Policy: maybe a glimpse of a bigger picture Paolo Verri
- Patent policy Thomas Schulze
- patent Karl Cronin
- RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents] Bullard, Claude L (Len)
- The mechanics of standards mattias.inghe@idg.se
- No Rand. daniel smith
- REJECT RAND Harald Holtij
- Reject RAND David Laws
- default to RF instead of RAND Chad K. Bisk
- RAND inconsistent with W3C Mission Michael Rose
- Re: RAND Patents: A great thing David Laws
- Do not let patents creep into W3C Nicolas Chauvat
- Stop it! Jakub Nadolny
- Re: The Burden of Proof Adam Warner
- No patent Kilobug
- I personally oppose this move Ren Hoek
- Versus RAND sea@asplinux.ru
- Don't go the easy way Thomas Breitkreuz
- Patents vs Standards Flemming Frandsen
- I am against the Proposal. CT@braehler.com
- Standards Jochem Kossen
- RAND and Free Software Erik Sigra
- Re: The Burden of Proof Joergen Ramskov
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Ron Arts
- RAND = BAD. Jeffrey Porter
- patent policy nonsense. Geoffrey King
- Power corrupts.. can you feel it? Szilard F. Takacs
- Re: Royalty-based standards Ross Golder
- Comment Marek Chmielewski
- reject using patents as basis of any W3C standard Nelson Frolund
- RE: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Theo de Raadt
- Re: failure to communicate Branden Robinson
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framew ork Working Draft Anthony W. Youngman
- Patent Policy John Gutierrez
- Patentpolicy Krzysztof Watroba
- Too many lawyers, not enough common sense. Artur Grabowski
- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Horatio Davis
- RAND proposal - obsolescence of W3C Daniel Stone
- W3C should not split the WWW Moritz Moeller-Herrmann
- Patent Policy Wojciech Dworakowski
- Re: Concerns raised by new patent policy / Correction Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int
- w3c patent "policy" Paul Evans
- RAND Tomek Barbaszewski
- Re: The Burden of Proof Daniel J. Weitzner
- Re: failure to communicate Janet Daly
- Re: W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Daniel Phillips
- patentpolicy alyson kittle
- The Burden of Proof Adam Warner
- Personal request Andres Arroyave
- NO to RAND licensing Erica Townsend
- W3C Patent Policy - can we please rename the W3C to USW2C! Alexander Falk
- W3C's Response to Public Comments on the Patent Policy Framework Working Draft Janet Daly
- RAND objection Graham Daniell
- Time for a new W3C, this one's been hijacked Michael Ellerman
- RAND already being assumed for SVG Daniel Phillips
- RAND Policy Mr Confucious Say
- late comment, PPWG response requested Paul Rohr
- w3c standards and patents josh hoblitt
- Comment period should be extended Sean@magnonel.guild.net,
- SAME! RAND clearly wrong for standards Bob
- RAND: This is the first time I've felt bad when pondering the W3. Dave Anderson
- Re: W3C patent policy Daniel Phillips
- patents & standards Andrew Tridgell
- Request for extension of comment period Steffen Evers
- Current W3C proposal for Patent Policy changes Erik Grimes
- Patent Policy Tim O'Reilly
- Re: W3C patent policy Daniel J. Weitzner
Tuesday, 1 February 2000
Monday, 1 October 2001
Sunday, 30 September 2001
Monday, 1 October 2001
Sunday, 30 September 2001
Monday, 1 October 2001
Sunday, 30 September 2001
Monday, 1 October 2001
Sunday, 30 September 2001
Monday, 1 October 2001
Last message date: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 16:07:28 UTC