[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: David Brownell <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:32:13 -0700
> I'm implying nothing.
You regularly imply things. It's a rhetorical tool
you've used as often as anyone else, including in
> I'm saying it bold and
> loud: the W3C is not chartered nor entitled to
> represent public interest.
Who actually argued that is its role? Surely
you're not implying I did? :)
"The" public interest is a bit fuzzy as notions go.
But I think it's clear that in this case some folk
at W3C proposed a policy that's antagonistic
to most interests except "BigCo" ones, and that
such a tilted playing field is not in "the" public
Of course, one can "serve" public interests and
yet not try to "represent" them. And not every
group claiming to represent public interests (say,
the US Congress after today's latest set of votes
against the Bill Of Rights :) actually does so.