[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
Maybe, but I have not given up on the W3C or its members to sort out the right thing to do. The W3C does do a reasonable job and while we have to be very clear where certain lines of authority and entitlement are drawn, we don't need to simply walk away. 1. They have to have a policy regarding patents. 2. That policy should discourage requiring patented technology in any specification or standard. I won't go so far as some have and say, "NO R EVER" because that is inflexible. Still, I think most can agree that royalities on technologies whose implementation may be required to use the Internet are not good for *all* parties. There are plenty of alternative organizations such as OASIS, the organization that sponsors XML-Dev, that will host and support open efforts. Certainly, one should go to such as OASIS, but remember, just because it has a policy doesn't mean one won't stumble into a patent. It is a PIA to be working on a public list and have someone send me email that says: "Be advised that we patented the concept of tagging human emotions, see http://upchuck.com " and know that if you look at that page, you may be bound to its terms. That sort of thing is bad law and must be changed. If someone wants me to look, they must give up the right to encumber me by the fact I looked. This sort of crap is making life hard for some standards groups (see the problems of XML, MPEG and X3D). Before I look, send me a waiver. We should make a distinction between standards and specifications. I believe (yes, a belief) a standard is written because a standard is in the public's best interest. The public's best interest is represented by the governing body of a local public. In this, ISO is better established for that purpose its members being national bodies and therefore, its interests are the interests of the international public. A specification is written to define or procure a technology or to encourage technical convergence. This may be in the public's interest or it may be simply market representatives asserting an interest. This is what the commercial consortia can do and do within a reasonable boundary between public and self interest without overstepping their authority. It's a fine boundary, I grant you, but one in which we can usefully say whose interests are served and answer Simon's original question. Then it is and only is a matter of the organization's policy with regards to issuing specifications that include patented technology, but given a patent, there is little need for a specification. There may be for a standard and yes, standards can include patented technology because it is possible that IS in the public's best interest. Otherwise, you wouldn't have an interoperating phone system over which to send these emails. len -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@s...] I think you're point's well stated, Len. W3C is not a body in pursuit of the public interest. So it seems like those whose interests favor free, unfettered base technologies for the web need seek appeal and refuge elsewhere.
|
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
|