<html> At 02:01 PM 10/1/01 +0530, Ashvil wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><a href="http://www.openphd.net/W3C_Patent_Policy/">http://www.openphd.net/W3C_Patent_Policy/</a> <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/" eudora="autourl">http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/</a><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/" eudora="autourl"> </a></blockquote> This is very interesting.  It's clear to me that the W3C are the "good guys" in this effort. What they're doing is trying to prevent the exploitation of "submarine" patents after standards are adopted.  An example is the notorious Welch '302 GIF patent:      <a href="http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US04558302" eudora="autourl">http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US04558302</a>__ Ater GIFs were widely adopted, Unisys decided they needed some extra bread, and they went around collecting royalties from people who used the Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression method implicit in GIF encoding.  People had to pay up, because lots of implementations of web standards needed GIFs to work.  It took some big hustling and pain to switch over to PNG. W3C is trying to prevent the element of surprise--a submarine patent surfacing and its owner demanding payment after standardization.  This is an entirely good goal, I think. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>What this means is that the W3C can create a recommendation that becomes a defacto web standard and any implementation will/may have to pay royalties. </blockquote> True.  But, the working group working on the standard (and everyone who reads the standard) KNOWS FROM THE START that it's working with either the Royalty-Free discipline or the Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory discipline for choosing technology.  Compare this with a situation where you DON'T know the patent status from the start. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>For example, SVG implementers would/could have to pay royalties. I rather have no SVG 'Web Standard' then have one where I need IP lawyers to negotiate royalties.</blockquote> At least you have the choice up-front! <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> If companies want to create open web standards then they should NOT be allowed use the patent system.</blockquote> I respectfully disagree.  I'd say that if I wanted to develop technology that is open to use by all, the most bulletproof way for me to do that is patent it, then to include in its README (if it's open-source software) words like this.  "This software is covered by US patent 7,xxx,xxx.  A license to use this software and that patent is hereby granted to anyone for any purpose and without fee."  Why is that best?  Because if I patent the technology, then I get to decide who can use it.  People who use it know it's legal.  Actually, it's sufficient, and way cheaper, to publish a detailed description (in an article for Dr. Dobbs Journal or some such) of the technology rather than patent it, to prevent someone else from patenting it. If the W3C doesn't adopt standards like this -- but rather sticks with an idealistic "patent-free" approach -- then some unscrupulous company can race-to-file obscure patents on the stuff being standardized, then exploit those patents when the technology gets widely adopted. Strangely enough, the GNU Public License does NOT include explicit permission to actually USE the software it covers, only to copy and make derivative works of it.  I fear this omission in the GPL is going to be crucial in resolving some upcoming patent litigation (see www.freedb.org). <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> It either an open web or a closed web owned by companies that can afford to pay big bucks to Intellectual Property lawyers. </blockquote> It's true that patents are expensive -- US$15K - $20K to get a patent.  But, "royalty-free" and "reasonable..." licenses to existing patents shouldn't be that expensive to get. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Should the Jabber specifications and any derived work be placed in a 'Patent Free Zone' OR do folks believe that Patents are the foundation of our IP (Intellectual Property) industry.  </blockquote> It would be terrific if the people who develop the base Jabber technology decided to make it "Royalty-Free" according to the W3C definition.  As I've mentioned before, I think "Patent-Free" is unrealistic and potentially problematic. Peace, Ollie Jones CTO DotClick Digital Music Network.</html>