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

[Jeff Lowery <jlowery@scenicsoft.com>]

I think you're point's well stated, Len. W3C is not a body in pursuit of the
public interest. So it seems like those whose interests favor free,
unfettered base technologies for the web need seek appeal and refuge
elsewhere. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 10:58 AM
> To: Frank Richards
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
> 
> 
> He is talking about things he think may have happened, 
> that do not happen in all cases, and are the very reasons 
> if they do happen that a W3C policy for patents is 
> required.  The only issue at hand is the specification 
> of non-RF technologies in their products.  That should 
> be discouraged but there are different means and that 
> is why the policy has to be scrutinized.  It may be 
> that the definitions of scope and means for specifications 
> and standards have to be made clearer, the work involved 
> in creating a WG and administering it made harder and more 
> rigorous, and the W3C must more carefully cherry pick its 
> projects and engage in more direct cooperation with the 
> national standards bodies whose governments do represent 
> public interests.
> 
> The patent attack topics are a red herring that allows 
> people to ignore the issue that the Internet is not 
> the W3C's to govern in the public's interest.  The W3C 
> does not represent the public.  This is a different topic 
> but one that becomes increasingly relevant as some 
> try to use the issues of the patent-policy to attach 
> their beliefs about the patent laws to the W3C.  I 
> think they do neither their cause nor the W3C much 
> good with that tactic.  The morals of the W3C members 
> are the business of the individual members.  The 
> W3C is only responsible for its policies.  The nut 
> mail that seeks to force the members to their will 
> will be ignored and attempts to execute actions 
> such as some have proposed prosecuted.  I suggest 
> everyone ramp down their rhetoric.  The W3C will 
> issue its policy in due time and those subject 
> to that authority will make their decision vis 
> a vis their responses to it.
> 
> len
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Richards [mailto:frichards@softquad.com]
> 
> >Yet a lot of the obvious enhancements
> >get patented.
> 
> I don't think so.  Some do but the patent office isn't quite
> that stupid.
> 
> Yep, once the Patent Office has issued a bogopatent to some 
> BigCo for every
> significant programming technique invented between 1946 and 1991 they
> probably will do a fairly good job of only issuing patents for real
> improvements.
> 
> >Or is every hobbyist entitled to their own bigco who'll pay 
> the lawyer's
> >fees to attack bogus patents?
> 
> Every hobbyist is entitled to give away that which is theirs 
> to dispose
> of in the manner and to whom they see fit.   They aren't entitled to
> do that with the property of others.
> 
> Len, You're saying how the system is supposed to work. He's 
> talking about
> how it's actually broken. You're talking past each other.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>