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

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

From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]

> I'm implying nothing.

>You regularly imply things.  It's a rhetorical tool
>you've used as often as anyone else, including in
>this debate.

Guilty as charged, but in this exchange I'm trying 
to be clear, not fuzzy.  We've been at it for over 
a week, so the lines are well-drawn at least from 
where I see it.

>  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?  :)

Steve brought it up.  In the main, I agree with him 
but I think it important to delineate constituencies. 
Otherwise, the arguments fall on ears not tuned to 
their contents.  Unless the membership of the W3C 
has public interests in mind, that argument has no 
appeal.  If they don't care, it has no impact.

>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
>interest.

I don't understand that.  Anyone can get a patent 
if they have the resources so we are back to the 
"policy favors the well-funded" problem.  I don't 
find the policy antagonistic per se.  They need a 
policy of some sort.  We are haggling terms here. 
Some say RF-only.  I say, RF-in all but exceptional 
cases.  They need to spend time working out what 
an exceptional case would be so they have a clear 
policy and informative guidance to WG Chairs.  It 
seems they were going in that direction before 
the tempest broke and some influential parties 
stated their preference for non-RF only.

len