[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Cutting special deals for open source developers --noway!
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > That is in fact, the climate you do work in. Patents > have been applied for and granted. In general, the > W3C has been specifying technologies that are for the most > part based on work done previously in government groups, > universities etc and some of these are patented. The MIT > suits are an example. >>Patents may be granted, but their 'force' depends at least in part upon how >>they are acknowledged. The mere possession of a patent means nothing - in >>and of itself - rather it is the threat of legal suit, actual force of law, >>or simply the reaction of the community that makes a patent more than a few >>scribbles on a piece of paper somewhere. That is not wrong but a little narrow. The patent process has a goal and both the force of law and the community reaction need not be at odds here. The possession of the patent grants property rights. The reality is that members of the community have to ensure that patents which affect their work are valid. This is proving to be expensive and some way to bring that expense down has to be found. The parts of the patent policy that require acknowledgement are a step in that direction. >W3C Recommendations intended to be an agreed upon standard practice. The >Internet/WWW community does not need to accept such practices if they are >truly proprietary, and more importantly the Internet and WWW communities >_should not_ give credibility to the vast majority of these patents. I agree that proprietary or patented technology should not be a common practice. I think such should be used only in the extreme cases where the excellence of the technology confers substantial benefits to the community of use. Otherwise, a better solution can be found. As to credibility, how credible is an organization that overlooks the norms of the standards community at large, the laws of its local governments, and the practices of its business members? Not very. If by this, you mean the scumbag patents taken out merely to extort, I agree. Such should be fought tooth and nail. It will take effort to know which is which. Consider the economists just given a Nobel Prize for observing that control of information affects markets. Duh. But there it is. What about Sun, Jonathan? Did RF legitimize a bad patent and did everyone simply lay down because of RF? XPointer is still encumbered. Apparently, so is SVG? What is to be done? Would it not have been better to have a policy in place before Adobe quietly tightened a leash around SVG? >> That is something you >> may want to look into. The claims of a norm for freely >> giving away company assets to engender company profits >> is to put it mildly, extraordinary. >What is your point? Are you suggesting that every proprietary piece of VB >code become a standard? Ad absurdam. Of course not. On the other hand, if it is proprietary as you say, it is not ours to do with as we please. I am saying that if your company does have a policy about information you "give away" in spec meetings, you might want to be aware of it. Not being aware is not responsible. And freely giving away valuable assets is not normal. Again, responsible and professional standards bodies have been aware of and responded to this problem for some time now with carefully crafted policy. >We really really need to think about what ought to >and what ought not become a standard. I agree. Cherry picking projects better, ensuring that all precautions are taken, inquiries made, and responses understood in advance of standards work is the norm for standards work. It isn't the norm for the W3C specification process and several expensive and excellent pieces of work are now compromised. That tells me we should also look very critically at bodies that have taken it upon themselves to create standards and examine their credibility. Failure to provide policy that would be considered the norm for other bodies that successfully do that work does not add to their credibility. Beyond that, we have to look at the community being represented and inquire into its rights and claims. The W3C is not a body that represents public interest. It represents commercial entities. The nature, powers, rights and restrictions of such entities scopes the definitions of the products it produces. I do not think the W3C is a credible standards body because a standard, in my opinion, reflects and protects public interests, not private interests. The W3C is a specification body and in that role reflects the interests of its members adequately. If it stumbles over a patent, it affects the commercial entities. Standards should be sought elsewhere. Given that specifications can become standards, the cooperation of the W3C with legitimate public standards bodies is very necessary. >What is so extraordinary about >demanding that any language that we _standardize_ for intercommunications be >freely implementable? Nothing at all but I have claimed nothing to the contrary. I said that claiming a norm for giving away the property of others is extraordinary. I repeat: being Robin Hood is romantic but still a hood. >> Commerce One just laid off almost half of its work force. >> Did freely implementable ideas help that to happen or >> prevent it? Was it a factor at all? >How have W3C Recommendations _hurt_ CommerceOne? If there were no Internet >there would be no CommerceOne in the first place. I don't know in either case. A valuable patent portfolio would help its book value. The scary thing is that the concepts over which CommerceOne has built its business are excellent and free and the results are the same. >This recent stockmarket >bloodbath was the direct result of alot of misconceptions regarding the >Internet (IMHO), particularly the one that any one company could in some way >"own" a significant piece of the internet (hence justifying the initial craz >ed valuations). Speculative investments often work that way. However, the bloodbath is not about the "ownership" at all. It is about the failure to make profit and return on investment. This isn't about the commons; it is about the stock value of companies some of which lied to investors, a press that spread that lie, and a public greedy enough to risk substantial sums on that lie. The software industry lied; the public believed it; everyone lost money. >Imagine software patents didn't exist. Would every VB demo >have been worth 2 billion dollars? No raised expectations, no crash. You are begging your position. As so many of you have been pointing out, that environment thrived on a myth of free ideas and concepts. The expectations were not based on that. They were based on a myth of limitless growth without the need to show profits. Classic stock bubble. >> This is why special deals for open source developers are >> unwise. It suggests that the value of assets can be >> applied in ways counter to their intent which is to >> exact licensing fees. Fair for all or none. >I agree with this point. Standards should be freely implementable by all. Not in every case. There can be cases where the excellence of the technology ensures that the public interests are best met by licensed technology. I think this will be the exception. >Requiring a conformance test -- e.g. as Sun has done with XPointer -- as >long as such a conformance test can be reasonably specified, is fine, but >anything a candidate for _standardization_ should be openly and freely >implementable. The Sun patent is the primary example of a patent that should have been refused and for which, the W3C should not have provided support. There is clearly prior art. This is where the system broke and why the patent policy is extremely important to hone for the W3C specifications. len
|
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
|