[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>, 'Amy Lewis' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:11:32 -0500
No, the concept is tenable. It is badly executed.
The bad results of not having a good policy
are everywhere in the arguments posted against it.
Jeff, the community that built the
a good deal of the alleged W3C technology is not the W3C,
yet you are willing to let the W3C govern that
technology when they have no more right to that
than those whose patents are bogus. Spy Vs Spy.
And yet again, you blame lawyers. Sour grapes.
I'm not for bad patents. I'm for sound policy.
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:email@example.com]
The concept of patenting software is sound, but the mechanism is prima facie
broken. I think this makes your support of RAND untenable, Len. If all
patents were good ones, your arguments would be sound, but bad ones backed
up by an inefficient and expensive legal process will shut out viable open
technologies for no good reason.
Can W3C avoid being hobbled by excluding patents? No. But it's not the
exclusion of patents that's the problem here; its the threat of mandated
royalties on W3C technology by those who really have not contributed to the
advancement of the art.
I'm afraid the legal profession in this regard is becoming like a
Mesoamerican priesthood, contributing nothing but exacting a debilitating
toll on the populace nonetheless. The only those at the top of the heap are
I'm not against patents, I'm just against bad ones that can't be challenged
without incurring terrible expense. I'm not against RAND, once the bad
patents are winnowed out.