RE: W3C as Golden Goose (was RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous n ewpolicy on patents])

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

At 8:50 AM -0400 10/2/01, Champion, Mike wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 8:16 AM
>To: Don Park; David Brownell; Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>Subject: Re: W3C as Golden Goose (was RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new
>policy on patents])
>
>
>>  Having served on the IPR Task Force for the Web3D Consortium and having
>written the > ipr policy of HumanMarkup group before it came under OASIS
>auspices which supercede > those, I can say that RAND utterly demolishes
>anything resembling open standards.
>>  Yes, it is THAT simple.
>
>As y'all probably know by now, the W3C has extended the comment period to 11
>October; see http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response "This allows for an
>extension to collect comments, and allows the Patent Policy Working Group to
>prepare for their next face-to-face meeting, which begins on 15 October
>2001. Please note: due to the large number of comments received in the past
>two days, the Team and Patent Policy Working Group will require extra time
>to identify substantial comments and provide responses in kind."
>
>Note the phrase "extra time to identify substantial comments":  I think
>that's the W3C's subtle way of saying "flames in Slashdot-ese are all very
>amusing, but constructive suggestions are more effective advocacy."
>
>Here's the way the W3C defines the problem:
>
>"As the proposed policy includes proposals such as:
>a requirement for disclosure provisions (Section
>   7);
>a procedure for launching new standards development activities as
>     Royalty-Free Licensing Mode activities (sections 4 and 5);
>a procedure for launching new standards development activities as
>     Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing Mode activities
>     (sections 4 and 5);
>W3C would like to know if your opposition to or support for the policy
>refers to all three of these proposals, or just some of them."
>
Specifically, I oppose RAND on the basis that non-discrimination that 
requires payment for all, or even that merely serves notice to its 
fellow similarly sized and inclined competitors that it will follow 
suit should any of them consider charging for their patents, is 
simply unworkable. The fact that some technologies have become de 
facto standards should not influence this official policy. Most of 
those technologies still stand a good chance of being replaced by 
public open standards so that content(information/knowlede) does not 
become hostage to patents.

Hopefully that is a bit more specific and clear.

Ciao,
Rex
-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request