OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Patent non-proliferation and disarmament

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Ok. Let's do this.  My fundamental position is that 
the arguments offered by Lessing and the W3C are not 
persuasive.  They are based on undecidable propositions, 
paranoid assertions, and assertions which can be 
demonstrated to be false.

1.  The web would not have emerged without non-royalty 
based standards.  (Note:  specifications are issued 
by the W3C; not standards.   It is important to distinguish 
specifications for systems to be created vs standards for 

This is undecidable.  Inventions have become standards 
and are royalty-encumbered.   It is possible and I 
assert based on the amount of activity in the industry 
that something similar to the web would have emerged. 
It would not of necessity be controlled by the people 
who control it now.  It likely would be a similar system. 

2.  The open source community health is of vital importance
to the success of the web.   

This is undecidable.   The choice to use an open source economic 
model is not without value, but it is not paramount.  Given 
the ubiquity of proprietary software, and the dominance of 
the Microsoft operating systems, it is just as likely, perhaps 
more, that the economic value of the web was vastly increased 
by the MS hegemony.  One can assert that it has thrived and 
then and only then inquire into the reasons for its robustness 
in the marketplace.

3.  "process of standards creation should not be contorted, 
subverted, and otherwise compromised by the private goals of 
individuals or companies seeking to incorporate their patented 
ideas into public standards"

This is paranoia.  It asserts that this is the case 
for individuals and companies.  It is in effect, saying that 
companies and individuals are guilty until proven innocent. 
This is bad policy.  Seeking to incorporate patented ideas 
into public standards is not prima facie evidence of the 
will or attempt to contort, subvert or compromise the public 
good.   It can be otherwise.

4.  "unsustainable patents are increasing at an alarming rate, 
swelling the patent portfolios of large companies dedicated to 
stockpiling their arsenals of (they say) "defensive patents." 

The first part of this is only decidable if the criteria for 
"unsustainable" can be enumerated.   In fact, the USPTO does 
have policy for this.  Why is this failing to work?  This 
is the problem to solve.  In fact, the most productive response 
the W3C can make is to show and prove that its technologies can 
add value to this process.  However, the validity of the claims 
made for prior art must be investigated.  In the cases of bad 
patents cited, in at least one case of which I have personal 
knowledge, the patent holder refused to investigate these 
claims.  If the claimnant cannot be required to exercise 
due dilligence, the USPTO is not at fault.

The second part is paranoia.  There is not proof that any 
companies large or small or individual are "dedicated" to 
stockpiling patents.   Observation of behaviors does not 
constitute proof of intent.

4.  "implementation of open standards should not be impeded by 
negative incentives arising from the legal requirement..."

The law is the law.  This can be changed but the implementation 
of open standards in no way is relieved of the obligation to 
obey the law.  This is a fanciful assertion.  Like the open 
source community, open source standards groups enjoy no special 
privileges de jure.

5.  "Standards organizations like W3C, ISO, IETF, and OASIS 
would be well within their right to ask for voluntary, selective 
non-enforcement of patents under their jurisdictions" 

This is correct.  It must be understood that the patent owner 
has the right to refuse to do this.  Both parties must accept 
the consequences of their choices.  It is possible that a 
good technology will be standardized by other bodies.  This 
is irrelevant to the ownership of a patent, but pertinent to 
the choice of the organization to which a patented technology 
is submitted.  A group has the right to constitute a different 
organization for this purpose and to use as many resources as 
available to market the technology and the organization.  This 
is how MPEG works and it is a well-recognized organization with 
some successes and failures in promoting its artifacts of interest.

6.  Reciprocal RF licensing represents one means of recognizing 
intellectual property while eliminating the threat of (e.g. RAND)
royalty fees which could dramatically alter the balance of power 
in favor of companies holding vast patent portfolios.

As stated, it represents one means.  The MPEG organization is another 
in which licensing is acceptable, payments are pooled and are made 
to members.   The concept of threat in this sentence is again, 

7.  "Sun backed that position up when it relinquished a set of IP rights 
it had -- a move that cleared the way for the royalty-free use of the W3C standard for Xlink'..." 

I am unaware that Sun has reqlinquished.  AFAIK, it offered a license 
acceptable to the W3C.  Continuing royalty-free use is not insured. 
Can someone show the agreement and make clear the terms and conditions?

8.  "Standards bodies and industry consortia responsible for the 
creation of open standards may look to the W3C for inspiration."

They might if they wish an example based on royalty free patents. 
If not, there are other exemplars.  Following these other exemplars 
cannot be proven to be detrimental to open standards, the growth 
of the web, or the balance of power.

9.  RAND will hurt open source developers 

Open source developers are not a privileged group.

o  RAND discriminates against the poor (developers or developing countries) 

Economic discrimination based on the ability to pay is not against the 
law.  It is against a moral imperative, but the concepts of value for 
value are not immoral.   They are discriminatory.  So is choosing a 
major brand over a boutique brand.

o  The RAND / RF split will fragment the Web. 

This cannot be decided.  Simply getting a definition of "the web" 
has occupied so much bandwidth that most have dismissed it as 
being of interest to XML-Dev readers.  It isn't likely that 
proof for fragmentation can be provided.

o RAND is not in the best interest of the Web 

See last item.  This cannot be decided.  The use of the 
Microsoft operating system and WinTel platforms have made 
it economically possible for many to enjoy the benefits 
of the web resources.  Value for value promotes value.

o RAND will stifle innovation and reduce choice 

This is paranoia.

o  RAND harms end users, not just developers 

This paranoia.

o  Patents and standards are incompatible 

This is demonstrably false.

o  Universal access and RAND are incompatible 

This is demonstrably false.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@isogen.com]

If you think RAND-licensed patents
are a good idea within the framework of Internet (open) standards,
-- in fundamental disagreement with W3C's draft RF policy and in
fundamental disagreement with Lessig, please say so and explain why.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS