RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

I understand it.  If those who are well-funded and 
use open source can support it by licensing patented 
technologies, they will continue as other businesses 
do.  It is very tough on the typical independent developer, 
thus my reference to "underfunded" because they are 
the ones most hurt by licensing royalties.  The RedHats 
of the world, heck even the James Clarks, can afford 
to pay the licenses but they are not typical, no doubt.

Stating that open source and patents are incompatible 
says that open source may be only as attractive 
as holders of patents are willing to grant RF RAND 
or the open software developers can provide legal alternatives. 
That is the same for businesses everywhere.  Legal 
alternatives mean increased effort and cost.  This will slow 
down open source.  Some think that the goal of 
non-RF RAND.  My opinion is that it is a side effect 
of a bad business model.  I've never convinced my 
mortgage company to grant an interest free loan. 

But no amount of debate is going to stop the rush 
to get more patents.  So a sound policy must be 
instituted.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

On Thu, 2001-10-11 at 09:06, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>  Underfunding 
> is not an excuse to break the law any more 
> than lack of knowledge is a reason for any 
> group to get a patent.  

Uh, Len?  Describing open source projects as "underfunded" seems to
reflect a serious lack of understanding about the nature of open source
and some of the basic reasons that open source and patented processes
aren't compatible.

Believe it or not, not everything is about cash.  Nor does everyone find
the notions of contracts and property you espouse so plainly to be
useful, much less interesting.