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

[Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>]

I say:
> The concept of patenting software is sound, but the mechanism 
> is prima facie broken.

You say:
> No, the concept is tenable.  It is badly executed. 

You know, if we're going to have an argument with someone, it helps if you
disagree. :-)


I will admit to inadvertently granting W3C ownership of all web technology.
Fortunately nothing said here is legally binding. Although with RAND, it
will be.

And I'm not saying shoot the lawyers, just gag the patent attorneys until we
get this mess straightened out. One way of straightening out a situation is
open revolt. Perhaps the best approach is to target a ridiculous patent and
have several hundred well-known gurus openly violate the hell out of it in a
public fashion. EFF could manage the defense fund. I'm in for a day's pay
(should cover the legal pads).

-- Jeff


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 6:12 AM
> To: Jeff Lowery; 'Amy Lewis'
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> len
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@scenicsoft.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
> immune.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>