Subject: RE: Some facts about the W3C RF Patent Policy

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:15:52 -0000

Guido,

I posted the information because it's relevant to several earlier e-mails in
this thread.  You can check the facts on the W3C web site.

The RF Patent Policy is one part of the complex proceedings within W3C, and
this is not the right forum to swap views about all that.  However, I am
certainly not in favour of the IETF trying to "fix" its IPR policy by
replacing it with a model which is untested. 

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Guido van Rossum [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 12:52
To: Travers,G,Graham,DKE TRAVERG R
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Some facts about the W3C RF Patent Policy

> Comments have been made on this list which suggest that the Royalty-Free
> Patent Policy in the W3C is a "done deal" and a success story.  It's not.
> 
> 1.  The Policy hasn't been approved.
> 2.  Development of the Policy split the Patent Policy WG down the middle.
> Consensus could not be reached and voting had to be introduced - followed
by
> continuing dissatisfaction and wrangling over the voting process used,
etc.
> (IMO, the split seems to be echoed in the W3C as a whole, and is causing
> considerable angst to the W3C "management Team".)
> 3.  The ramifications of the Policy have yet to be seen, and will probably
> only become clear when, and if, the Policy is adopted. (IMO, they will
> include knowledgeable experts withdrawing from W3C standards development,
> and possibly from the organisation altogether.)
> 
> 	Regards,
> 
> 	Graham Travers
> 
> 	International Standards Manager
> 	BTexact Technologies

Graham, apart from the split in W3C (which nobody wants to see I
presume), which way would you personally like to see the W3C's patent
policy go?  And where does your employer want it to go?  This would
be helpful information in understanding why you are posting this
information now.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:02:22 -0000

Larry,

Thank you for explaining my motives to me. I didn't realise that I had them,
but then I don't have a qualification in mind-reading.  I wasn't a
member/participant of the PPWG, and I haven't tried to influence the W3C RF
debate in either direction.  Still, attempted demonisation is always good
for rallying the troops, isn't it ?

Thank you for confirming the fact that the W3C RF Patent Policy hasn't been
approved.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 20 February 2003 16:15
To: Travers,G,Graham,DKE TRAVERG R; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Some facts about the W3C RF Patent Policy

Graham,

Since you've spoken publicly about this I need to clarify the picture
somewhat too.  The deliberations of the W3C Patent Policy Working Group
are confidential and so I won't comment directly on your assertions
about what the WG has decided and what it will publish as its Last Call
Draft.  But you are wildly exaggerating the discord and not adequately
representing the attempts of that group to reach a concensus that gives
fair voice to all sides of the RF-RAND debate.  Let me simply quote to
you the second sentence of the latest public working draft, a sentence
that has been in the W3C draft patent policy for over a year now:

   The goal of this policy is to assure that 
   Recommendations produced under this policy
   can be implemented on a royalty-free basis.

This statement of W3C policy has garnered very broad support from
members of the W3C Patent Policy Working Group as well as the management
and leaders of W3C.

It was with that sentence in mind that I recommended to IETF yesterday
the following bullet point for discussion:

   1. IETF shall not knowingly promote a Standard
   that requires for its implementation a patent
   license unless that patent license is available
   to all on RF Terms.

You may disagree with that goal but it is certainly consistent with what
the W3C PPWG has long agreed is its objective.  

I also don't want this to turn personal, but it is interesting to note
that representatives of the telecommunications industry seem to be the
most ardent foes of RF patent policies in W3C.  It seems to me that
protection of monopolies -- in this case through patents on
telecommunication industry standards -- is your real motive.  That
motive is inconsistent with the goal of the open source community to
ensure freedom to practice industry standards without paying "taxes" to
patent holders.

If some (few!) companies quit W3C over what has been decided by its
Patent Policy Working Group and what will shortly be proposed to its
Advisory Council and Director for approval, so be it.  That doesn't and
won't change the result, which is royalty-free industry standards for
the web.  Those who might leave W3C over this simply won't be able to
participate in the creation of those standards.  

We want to make sure those holdouts won't rush to IETF to do their dirty
work.

/Larry Rosen