[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
The document is yetAnotherPhilosophyAsEconomicPolicy. Too many of the people cited in your paper are just philosophizing on undecidable propositions based on ludicrous interpretations of recent events. The policy is the direction the W3C has chosen. Some policy is better than no policy given the CSS patent and XPointer patents that are absurd on the face of them to anyone who was in the industry prior to circa 1995. What happened to that prior art? In the case of XPointer, Sun ignored it. In the case of CSS, MS ignored it. The patent office had nothing to do with this. It was the trend of the web pioneers to take far too much credit for the work that set that example. Cry about it, plead for open source, do all these things, but a level playing field is not what this is about. It is about property rights, the fundamental right of sustainable economies, the right to exchange value for value under agreed on terms. What about reasonable patents? Where patents are reasonable and the technology is useful, those who want to share it via normal business channels simply need to avoid the W3C and the open source community. I doubt seriously that will matter for a reasonable patent. By degrees, valuable technologies will be standardized outside the w3c which will itself, become by degrees, irrelevant to those areas of technology. Without property rights, no other rights matter. len -----Original Message----- From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@i...] Thanks, Len. The document referenced [1] is not intended to assist inventors in making a decision "whether to patent or not." The document fully reckons with the reality that software patents exist, and accepts hypothetically that continued acquisition of patents may be the only safe strategy for a company seeking to maintain parity in the current environment. Until better mechanisms are established for contributing patented IP to reciprocal-license pools, the policy in draft at W3C seems to me eminently defensible: take some appropriate measure to guarantee (selective) non-enforcement of patents which legally encumber open standards. That's what WASP advocated in response to the Microsoft CSS-related patent; that's what Tim Bray and others advocated in response to the Sun XPointer patent. That's what IBM is (apparently) being forced to do in connection with the ebXML (CPP/CPA) patents. I've called this "Patent non-proliferation and disarmament" in honor of the label "defensive" patent portfolios. I know several individuals who have been awarded software patents, and all, to a person, agrees that the patent system in the US is badly broken. What do you think? You would serve the interests of your readers better by identifying good/bad arguments than by characterizing a document as reflecting a polarized kind of "thinking." 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. Comments offline about ways to improve the document are also welcome. Best, Robin [1] http://xml.coverpages.org/patents.html Patents and Open Standards On Fri, 10 May 2002, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > There is so much "us vs them" thinking in that paper...
|
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
|