From - Thu Apr 17 14:32:26 2003 X-Mozilla-Status: 0013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: carl@andisplanet.com Received: from wiley (node-402421a9.mdw.onnet.us.uu.net [64.36.33.169]) by andisplanet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BCE910E8 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:08:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from geraldgleason.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by wiley (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2MEhFv01039 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:43:16 -0600 Message-ID: <3E7C7682.5090709@geraldgleason.com> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 08:43:14 -0600 From: Gerry Gleason User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss@ggpl.org Subject: Re: Royalty-Free Patent Policy (W3C) References: <3E7C4F8F.1020500@ggpl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carl Vilbrandt wrote: > Should Organis design consider the Royalty-Free Patent Policy (W3C) > and other types of compromise? I wish we didn't need to, but with the current climate ... I think the real question is whether to undertake this only as a tactical tool to defend and expand the Open/Free IP space under the GGPL, or to really take it on as a strategic openning to decisively clear large spaces from the possibility of falling under private control, and also to advance affirmative arguments that help to coalesce the support and energy of a large part of the Open/Free source community. The GPL doesn't really deal directly with patents, it is more of an exclusionary approach, but if GGPL embraces patents in the same 'viral' way that the GPL embraces copyright, you might have a really powerful concept that will draw attention and activity to the whole constelation of ideas that surrounds it. If we do make it strategic, the next question is how to relate and connect with the world of private patents and copyrights, and the political and legal frameworks that support them. Clearly there is a lot to debate and work out about these issues, and how you answer them will have a big impact in the level of resistance you will see from individuals and institutions as you try to sell your ideas and expand your scope. I'm thinking of some specifics, but it will be better to discuss them in the context of Carl's funding challenges (other message). > > I tend to think that at the very least try to identify different > phases of the development of the Organis structure based levels of > development of digital technologies. To be more explicite, in the start-up phase (now), we are embedded in the curents systems and institutions (financial, educational, political), and need to survive and flurish under their terms. If this program is successful in the long run, even if the legal frameworks of patent and copyright survive in anything like their current form, they will not be that significant because they won't represent a large fraction of total economic activity. One thing to consider is whether the Organis design ideas can be patented as unique business processes and organizational structures. Obviously this has to be handled very carefully to avoid major strategic mistakes, but it could be the way to initiate the strategic moves as discussed above. Gerry > > # "W3C Unveils Its Patent Plans" > CNet (03/19/03); Bowman, Lisa M. > > [ ... ]