[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:45:35 -0500
From: David Brownell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> I'm implying nothing.
>You regularly imply things. It's a rhetorical tool
>you've used as often as anyone else, including in
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
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.