Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
 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 systems.) 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, paranoia. 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@i...] 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. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
