Slashdot Mirror
W3C Considers Royalty-Bound Patents In Web Standards
Svartalf writes: "There's a report on Linux Today about a proposed loosening of requirements on patented technologies being submitted for W3C consideration. Called RAND, short for 'reasonable and non-discriminatory,' it basically changes the position of W3C with respects to patents. This is a real problem as all of you know, considering that we've had all kinds of fun with other 'reasonable' licensing (MP3 and GIF come immediately to mind) -- the cutoff for comments is tomorrow (9-30) so if you want to get them in do it NOW." September 30 is now today rather than tomorrow. The same issue was raised in a post yesterday as well, but many readers have submitted news of this Linux Today piece. Reader WhyDoubt points out that comments on the change are archived on the W3C's site, including this pithy comment from Alan Cox. Do you think that fee-bound patents have a place in the standards promulgated by the W3C? Read the Patent Policy Working Group's FAQ, then add your comment.
Well, I had already sent my comments before this appeared on slashdot.
Please, dont just comment on this board; go ahead and send that email with your level- headed-non-profane thoughts.
This certainly looks like a sneak-it-in approach with such a short public comment periond - especially for something this large.
Hopefully some prudent arguments can be made to convince the W3C folks.
Said after pointing out the secretive and rule violating manner this happened and rightly snearing at how this will contribute the purpose of the organization, interoperability. His prediction:
This would mean SVG became a multi-vendor consortium pushing a private specification. But let's face it - with the patents involved - that is precisely what it is.
And so the internet becomes TV as all are shoved out to be replace by three or four big broadcasters. Can it happen? Sure it can, just look at all the empty TV and radio spectrum. There is no technical or real economic reason the airwaves are filled with nothing but comercial noise or static. It's a problem with bad laws.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Loosening these restrictions is in the interests of business who hold patents.. but not in the interests of the potential future business getting into the web.. and that's the problem.
Having a completely open stardard is definately better than having a standard with patents involved. Completely open means anyone can take it and work with it... without paying the piper.
What I cannot understand is - why exactly they need it? Are there any Web standards incoming so complex that they need someone who will charge a fee for it and there's can be no open alternative possible? I know that almost for every proprietary standard known well enough there's an open alternative, often superior to its proprietary match. So why exactly W3C needs restricted standards? Just because someone paid for it? If so, the things are very sad indeed.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
What you're forgetting is that the very transistors that make up your beloved computers were once patented. Without that patent, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The question we should be asking is, do we want to hold back web standards by two decades to satisfy our irrational aversion to patents? I don't think we should. The consequences on the growth of the web will be disastrous if we don't take sensible steps like allowing patented technology into web standards.
If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
For reasons never disclosed to public, browser vendors didn't want to implement HTML 3.0. Except free browser projects, but their users were minority and the development resources were really small.
Then, one day, HTML 3.2 was revealed to the world. In terms of features it was a downgrade from HTML 3.0. In terms of sanity it had none, because it merely "standardised the current state," according to W3C. That explicitely excluded free browsers which implemented parts of HTML 3.0 and were going to implement more, but W3C never cared about them.
There never was a public discussion about HTML 3.2. After the publication the amount of flames from the free world on W3C lists was enormous. Unlike flames on Slashdot, where flamers rarely know anything about the subject of their flame, this was flaming from the people who knew everything about the subject. And it was going on for months. I don't think Slashdot flames ever managed to reach the level of revolt HTML 3.2 produced.
And now it's happening again. Surprised? You shouldn't be.
You see, W3C is a vendor consortium and vendor consortiums take care about interests of its members. That's why they exist.
Obvious angles on it:
No one should be surprised by the change in patent information. Look at the membership structure of the W3C. We can compare it to the membership structure of the IETF, a group I think everyone would consider open and "free."
First, in the W3C, membership is only offered to organizations. In the IETF, all individuals can participate in the Working Groups; any individual can generate a RFC.
Second, in the W3C, membership costs either $5000 or $50,000. IETF membership is free. It does cost money to attend an IETF meeting, but that cost is around $500; well within the reach of any serious developer.
Control of working groups in the IETF (and the IESG) is based on technical ability or desire. In theory, you don't really have to be a prior participant in the IETF to run a working group. (But it helps. A lot.) In the W3C, you must be a member (paying $5000 or $50,000), in order to run a WG.
In the IETF, decisions are made on rough consensus. In the W3C, decisions are also made based on consensus with elaborate procedural systems. It's interesting to compare and contrast the amount of procedural information on the W3C's web site versus the IETF's web site.
In general, all IETF working material is open and accessible to the public. You can read RFCs as they are being written; you can read, post, and comment on IETF mailing lists. W3C working material is not open to the public.
Companies may ask if the IETF is unfriendly towards business. I do not think this is the case. Look at Cisco. Cisco has certainly participated in the IETF; they are very involved in the development of several IETF standards. However, Cisco still has the ability to develop their own proprietary protocols and still has the ability to make secret agreements with other companies.
In short, membership in the W3C has always been primarily by businesses. In fact, there is no way for an individual to join the W3C. Anyone surprised by an extreme pro-business slant of the W3C is not really familiar with the W3C's nature.
[You might wonder why companies don't control the IETF as much as they control the W3C. My theory is that the W3C works on items much more relevant to the end user. A mass-market consumer is much more amazed by SVG than they are by packet switching. Companies have a strong interest in controlling what the mass-market consumer sees.]
(Refs: W3C Membership, IETF Web site)
--Sam
My comments as send to the PPWG:
Hello,
I've just read the Patent Policy WG FAQ and I have grave concerns about the
world wide web consortium pursuing this avenue.
The value of the W3C is dependent on the value of the standards it
promulgates. The value of those standards depends on their widest adoption by
the global internet community. Adoption by the internet community is
dependent on the ease and value of implementing those standards.
As a member of the internet community since 1984, I've seen a few standards
come and go.
As an inventor with a few patents, I know exactly what the value of patents
are. Companies and individuals do not go through the work of obtaining
patents because it is fun, or inexpensive. They do so with the intention of
profiting from them before they expire.
Allowing patented technologies to become w3c standards will benefit no one
except the patent holder. Having the internet community given the choice of
supporting w3c standards and paying license fees or developing non-patented
pseudo-standards will result in a plethora of divergent and redundant
standards in use. The value of the w3c will go into the toilet.
I urge you to disband the working group and abandon this policy from
consideration.
regards,
Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg,
Chief Technical Officer, Asoki Corporation
Chief Information Officer, CruisExcursions.com
President, Inicom, Inc.
Director, Fuzzy Theory LLC.
-a.e.mossberg
under this paradigm, a new frontier requires an entirly new technology.
I don't see it yet, unless it is something like th computerization of telepathy and the Aklashic records [joke!]
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
RAND, in Hindi means 'Prostitute'.
Kind of a fitting title (?)
-Shaunak.
I think that the W3C incorporating a "non-discriminatory" license to patents does just the opposite -
Lets take a look at open source, shall we?
According to a Netcraft survey (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/) taken in July 2001, 60% of the internet's web servers STILL RUN APACHE. The reasons for this? It is fast, cheap, and secure. The reason it is all three of these is it is OPEN SOURCE. If the W3C began considering patented technology for standards, and incorporated those standards into core web systems (example: secure, uncopyable web page) then, if that technology uses some server-side component, Apache, the LONG TIME leader in web servers, would be LEFT OUT IN THE COLD and hence, discriminated against.
Granted, that may the whole point for this move - the authors are from some of the largest IT companies in the US - Microsoft (well, their IP law firm), Apple Computer, and HP. That's fine. It is also counter to the goals of the W3C.
(quoting from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/#goals)
"W3C's long term goals for the Web are:
1) Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, education, ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on all continents;
2) Semantic Web : To develop a software environment that permits each user to make the best use of the resources available on the Web;
3) Web of Trust : To guide the Web's development with careful consideration for the novel legal, commercial, and social issues raised by this technology."
So unless the W3C wants to become a hypocrisy and a joke, either this proposal has to go, or the original goals have to go. I'd hate to see the goals change. W3C has provided an amazing service to the web community, and if its goals change, I'm afraid that service would cease to exist.
Don't get me wrong - I am a small business owner and as a small business owner I understand the value of intellectual property as much as if not more than a large company. If my business model is based on my IP, then with it I make money, without it, I fall into the (if I'm not mistaken) 95% of companies that close their doors within the first five years of existence. HOWEVER, I don't think that STANDARDS should be based on patented technologies unless the patent owner freely licenses it to anyone who uses the standard.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
Just fired this off, feel feel to copy:
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Unfortunately I didn't see Alan's reply before writing up mine, he surely has some points I should have included.
Anyway:
I believe the adaption of possibly non-royalty-free standards by W3C would
be a fatal mistake. Please take the time to consider the implications:
Right now, projects like Konqueror, Mozilla, Lynx, Links and even your own Amaya are doing a pretty good job - but they can't continue if they have to pay to implement the next set of standards.
If you have been on the net long enough, you will have noticed that all attempts to create a similar infrastructure based on closed "standards" have ultimately failed (e.g. Europe Online) or turned to open standards, basically becoming an ISP and an internet portal (AOL,
Compuserve, MSN)
The problem becomes much bigger once someone starts charging royalties for something that is even a w3c standard (imagine some company finding
a reason for charging royalties on the a href= html tag).
I can understand the reasoning behind allowing RAND; yet I think it will cause far more trouble than it's worth.
Please reconsider.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
The progress the W3C has made in the past *without* giving in to royalty-burdened patents has been absolutely fantastic.
It is not like there is a lack of innovation here.
Why fix something that's not broken? Money should not be the focus of the W3C... bringing the market to maturity and ensuring competition (and thus innovation) should be its goal.
Patents are wisely justified under the U.S. Constitution to "Promote the Sciences and Useful Arts" and are not justified under any sort of natural-rights or right to compensation logic. One must ask if the patent process is indeed satisfying its goal. If not, then institutions such as the W3C should not be rushing to support the implementation of restrictive mechanisms that are not needed.
It has been brought to my attention by an AC that I misrepresented the Netcraft survey.
Sixtey percent of HOSTNAMES that provide an http service that they polled used Apache, not necessarily 60% of the physical number of SERVERS.
This does not change my argument in the slightest.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
I'm ignorant here... but could someone explain what happens when a patent is contested? Can one ask for a trial by Jury of Peers? I can imagine how a patent would fool most laywers or lay people... but a jury pool of practicing programmers; this may be a different story, no? Also, I was wondering what happens when you win? Can you get damages? Against who?
Don't post here - send them an email instead! (Or do both!) I put in my 2 cents (since I don't know what else to do...)
o li cy-comment
There were only 7 comments archived in August and merely 9 in the month of September... until yesterday! Way to go guys! (I have to assume that Slashdotters helped pummel them with comments.)
You can see everyone's comments here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentp
Last time I looked there were 250+ comments! Fortunately, most of them were opposed to incorporating patented technology into W3C recommendations.
What you call "wide use" was the very small by modern standards online world of CompuServe and independant BBSes. Unisys started enforcing their patent by 1990, if not earlier, BTW.
The WWW userbase is 1000x bigger than that (at least), and if the GIF licencing thing was really a huge problem (even BBS land), somebody could have easily whipped up an open replacement. I saw the discussions back on the BBSes, and the conclusion was "Nah, we'll just have our vendors pay the fees."
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
My Comment to the www-patentpolicy-comment list
We can sit here and talk about it all day, or we can do something...
-jerdenn
No one should be surprised by the change in patent information. Look at the membership structure of the W3C. We can compare it to the membership structure of the IETF, a group I think everyone would consider open and "free."
Indeed. One must also remember the shakiness of the control that the W3C has over Web standards - if Web developers and Browser developers choose to ignore the W3C then their leverage simply disappears.
Therefore, if the W3C does indeed allow this recommendation to become a standard, then I propose a solution:
Ignore them.
If Web and browser developers need to advance the state-of-the-art in Web technology, then do it through the IETF standards process rather than the W3C.
I do not like the idea of a balkanised web, where IE (following the W3C standards) must be treated differently to every other browser (following the hypothetical IETF standards), but, in a sense, this is what we already have on the Web, so there is no great loss.
If IE users find themselves unable to view... oooh, the 20% of the web that might follow these IETF standards, then Microsoft will soon change its tune, much as the push towards CSS-styled web sites has helped IE's CSS compliance. Who knows? In the meantime it could even be an excellent way of reducing the dominance of IE in the browser market.
So go ahead, W3C, make these changes in your patent policy. It will only spell the end of any control you have.
I see this crap every day of work: I cannot turn around without stumbling over a patent license that prevents me from supporting a standard. I work in the land mobile radio market. Look at the big player in this market: Motorola. They own most of the patents on the standards, and so they can pretty much prevent any competitor from gaining a foothold in the market. If you want to have a system that works correctly, you buy Motorola repeaters, Motorola consoles, Motorola mobiles, and Motorola test equipment. Try to integrate a Racal, E.F. Johnson, or Kenwood system, and all the places Big M violated the published standard break everything.
Open standards aren't just a good idea, they are the ONLY WAY to make a system that everybody can play in.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Yet another time in which we're sending a flurry of email at the last minute with dubious effect. It would have been much better to begin sending in comments sometime between now and back in 1999 when they started deliberations on this. Is there no web site/group that actually keeps tabs on these things? We need to start the discussion at the beginning, or at least as soon as possible rather than 12 hours before time is up.
Let's try to imagine the point of view of the W3C corporate members:
<W3C LOGIC>
Individual developers and researchers don't create technology, only large companies with fat R&D budgets can do that.
If something is in a W3C standard, then it must have been created by a company with a fat R&D budget.
All W3C standards were GIVEN to the public by benevolent cooperative corporations who just want everything to work together seamlessly.
Where the hell do slashdotters get off complaining about the consortium members trying to protect the technology that they invested so much $ in?
Slashdotters are a bunch of freeloaders who don't want to pay for anything, ever.
Al Gore invented the Internet.
</W3C LOGIC>
In fairness, it should be noted that many IETF
standards are also encumbered by patents. See http://www.ietf.org/ipr
Some patent holder grant the rough equivalent of
RF licenses, others RAND licenses. Only the latter
is a requirement according to RFC 2026.
One interesting difference, however, is that one
needs at least two independent, interoperable
implementations, both of which have to have exercised the licensing policy, to advance a document from Proposed to Draft Standard stage.
(For reasons unrelated to IPR issues, most recent
IETF RFCs are Proposed Standards, not Draft
Standards.)
Basing your standards on patented methods will fragment the web and destroy your organization. If you succeed in forcing such debased standards on the web, your corporate masters will no longer need you. If you fail, you will be irrelevant. Either way W3C loses.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
> What is out there works.
Kind of, if you learn about and work around all the horrible browser bugs that constitute "de facto" HTML.
> W3C specs even surpass the most obscure RFCs in
> their obtrusity.
That is true, but the specs for HTML and CSS (for example) are specifying something that is necessarily a lot more complicated than stuff usually dealt with in RFCs.
> W3C specs are usually playing catch-up with
> existing technologies.
In some places yes, in some places no. There lots of cool things in (say) CSS and SVG that haven't been widely implemented yet.
By allowing patented technology to become an officially recognized standard, you essentially favor the creator of the patent in such a manner as to drive all business in that technology to a small group of vendors. The only official standards should be those that are open and freely available to all users.
For example, GIF should not be a recognized standard, because of the encumbrances by Unisys. The PNG standard is a much better choice because it does not base itself on one company's technology and can be adopted by all. The software used to create a patent can be trademarked, copyrighted, etc., in the author's mannter of choosing, but it does not restrict the file format itself. The PNG format will never undergo the kinds of hassles various authors of GIF-related programs due to Unisys entanglements.
A consequence of recognizing patented technology is that the W3C runs a severe risk of appearing biased in favor of one company's standard. This will open the W3C up to lawsuits by those whose technologies failed to make the standard. Even the argument of technological superiority would not hold up in court because there is no way to empirically prove that one technology is better than another for all applications.
Thank you,
signature follows, etc. etc.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Considering that this wasn't a news item when I'd sent in the update (as soon as I saw it on Linux Today), it could be that Linux Today scooped them- or Alan's got his own grapevine (entirely concievable...).
/. took up a substantial amount of the slack in that regard- even though it's not normally topical, I'm quite grateful they DID cover things as well as they did.)
At any rate, Slashdot's not the only source of breaking news (it's about 30-40% there for that these days) and neither is Linux Today. You've got to mine the 'net and everywhere else for info- and then spread critical/important details as far and wide as you possibly can. (Of note is the 11th's events- the regular web news sites collapsed under load and
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This is the VERY reason why I sent the news item in to /. in the first place.
Above all,
1) Keep your post rational and coherent- no flames please.
2) If you don't have some partially formulated argument of the forms that have been moderated up on here or use the link to archives to get ideas on the good ones- don't be overly verbose and keep to the point.
3) Try to avoid undue Microsoft or corporation bashing. Some have said Alan Cox' letter had too much hyperbole- read closer, it's actually part of his arguments and fits with the reasoning (Realize that over 2/3 of the comittee that formulated this proposal are from big corporate interests such as Apple, Microsoft and HP.). Having said this, much of the best arguments in this vein have been said already and unless you can come up with better ones, I'd avoid it because it will seem like hyperbole or ranting.
4) Try to spell-check things! Some of the stuff is embarassingly mis-spelled in some of the letters.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Who is to say he's NOT with a company that was responsible for that stuff and they just got edged out of membership- they just DID raise the membership fees to $50kUS.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The comments are over 520 on the list and growing by 1-3 a minute.
Remember:
1) Keep the stuff to clean, coherent comments- no flames or ranting. They won't listen to either.
2) Focus on the issue that any royalty structure is, by it's very nature discrimintory, and that they contradict themselves in the proposal several times.
3) Focus on the issue that a substantial part of the Internet is powered by open source software that will be unable to pursue implementing things because of the licensing issues.
4) Remind them that they exist for the purposes of ensuring that the WWW doesn't become balkanized- which this would do.
5) Spell-check things if at all possible- there's some embarassingly mis-spelled stuff sent in by some important figures.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
For example, errors in the definition of an Essential Claim leave many, many loopholes. An example: If some patented technology is included in the later stage of a Recommendation, a patent owner can, in full compliance with the W3C procedures, obtain a patent without the need to disclose it. And that's not the only error. Basically, the patent holder decides which patents to reveal and which to hold back, and W3C cannot do anything about it. This makes most of the draft meaningless.
My submission was wirtten hastily, so it's probably full of typos,strange thoughts and lack of facts, but if you are interested nevertheless, it's available at: http://www.s.netic.de/fw/w3c-patent-policy-2001-09 -30.pdf
If this becomes the official Patent Policy of the W3C, even current standards (CSS 1 and 2, HTML 4) are not safe from retroactive patent encumbrance.
Section 5.3 of the policy provides for the possibility of re-chartering an existing Working Group under a new Licensing Mode (i.e., given that no-one would have an incentive to change it the other way, re-chartering an RF Working Group as a RAND Working Group.)
The Patent Advisory Group (the drafters of the new policy) can initiate this process and (albeit after approval from the Director), all the members get thrown out and have to be re-nominated, and *licensing commitments made by Working Group members under the older charter are void.*
In other words, if the e.g. CSS Working Group were dissolved and reconsituted in this way, companies could start charging licensing fees for the patents they hold on current CSS standards - either under RAND, or (worse) by withdrawing from the process completely and licensing under discriminatory terms.
Who has CSS patents, and who would they like to discriminate against?
Gerv
As many others I too have lost confidence in the ability of W3C to direct the evolution of the Web.
HTML 3.0 and MathML are but two examples of how the corporate nature of the W3C has led to the delay and/or abandonment of sound technical proposals.
If you are interested in charting a new path for the web join the World Wide Web Standards Group (W4SG).
Something this important should have been brought up here over a month ago. To not hear about it until literally the last day is very surprising and disappointing. What happened? Some of the documents on the W3C site are dated last modified on 8/10/2001.
That said, I believe we should raise bloody hell. We can't afford to have the standards for the Web become closed and proprietary. I know of no way patents can be enforced without also closing the source of implementations. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that basic software technology is owned as "property".
Since the publication of Adam's article on Linux Today, and the Slashdot listing of the article, many have written to voice disagreement with the current Working Draft of the W3C Patent Policy Framework.
1 6/
For those of you not familiar with how W3C works: W3C puts documents out for public comment, announces them, and is obliged to respond to questions and critiques. This document was no different; in fact, not only was the document announced on the W3C Homepage six weeks ago, the WG produced both a FAQ and backgrounder, and the announcement was carried on a variety of syndication services which rely on RSS feeds.
As many of you may have missed the August announcement of the draft, I include the links here for your reference. I would ask that you consider reading these documents as "item 0" in Adam's "What you can do" list.
Announcement: archived with date at http://www.w3.org/News/2001
FAQ: http://www.w3.org/2001/08/16-PP-FAQ
Backgrounder: http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews
W3C Patent Policy Framework: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-200108
For more information on how W3C works in general, I invite you to read the W3C Process Document:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
As of now, many comments sent to W3C's Patent Policy Comment list simply say, "Don't!" By responding in this manner, writers give the Working Group nothing on which to build a constructive response or to consider. Should you decide to comment, I suggest here what you can do to help W3C make the most of your comments, and help it be in a position to act on them:
1. Read the draft itself. (You may find the FAQ and backgrounder useful.)
2. Provide your comments directed at specific sections of the draft with which you object.
3. Ask questions where you find the language of the draft itself unclear.
4. If you make philosophical objections, please base them, at least in part, on your reading of the draft.
W3C welcomes all comments - critical and otherwise - on its documents. I would say though, that the preference is for substantiated comments. This type of comment leads to action; at the very least, they demand consideration on behalf of the Working Group, as well as a thoughtful response.
Best regards,
Janet Daly
Head of Communications, W3C
This would mean SVG became a multi-vendor consortium pushing a private specification. But let's face it - with the patents involved - that is precisely what it is.
Could someone elaborate on what Alan Cox is talking about here? Is the current SVG standard encumbered by patents? Is it about to be? How? Considering how long this standard has been promoted as an open solution to the mishmash of proprietary vector graphics solutions, this would be a tragedy and an insult.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Well said. And if any and all are free to submit RFC's to the IETF, I propose that unless the W3C pulls their heads out of their asses, all current W3C standards be submitted in RFC format to the IETF. Smells like a code fork to me.
Of course I have little or no understanding of the copyright issues involved in this case. Would this be possible?
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
your PATENTED business technology as A STANDARD then. The issue is wether we should allow a standard to be announced and force people to adhere to it, and at the same time allow some company to sit back and reap the rewards of the W3C pushing their product for them. If you want a closed technology more power to you, but don't expect someone like a standards board to do you work for you. :).
As to why Linux on the desktop is not popular I disagree with you. I don't think the whole package matters at all, or PRICE, it is WORD, EXCEL, and GAMES that keep home users tied to M$.
Most people NEED/REQUIRE interoperability with work, which for MOST people entails MS Office. The second driving computer force is GAMES, maybe the first, hom many kids talked their parents into a computer so they could do homework or Dad could do Work, just to actually get DIABLO
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The story was in the September 10 USA Today, and September 11 Wall Street Journal. I searched, but don't find a Slashdot story about it.
Kodak's claiming that part of it infringes/overlaps on one of their recent imaging patents. (5,459,819)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Keep in mind that this doesn't "change" any Working Group activities within the W3C to mandate RAND licensing.
That's not true - see section 5.3. Any current working group can be disbanded and converted to a RAND licensing policy; when it is, all previous licenses given by the members are null and void.
Disband CSS, put it under RAND and boom! No more Mozilla/Konqueror, and Opera Software pay through the nose.
Gerv
From here:
An article on "LZW Data Compression" was published in the October 1989 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal (see the Bibliography section for more details). A reader replied in the December issue explaining that the algorithm was patented. The author of the article added that he was unaware of any patent on the algorithm. More readers wrote, and in the March 1990 issue the editor-in-chief dedicated his Editorial to this topic, which in his words "sparked a forest of fires". The same issue also contained an official statement by Unisys Corporation, which confirmed that LZW was patented, mentioned the modem industry, and indicated how developers could contact Unisys. . (Article goes on to aledge that Unisys either was unaware or ignored the GIF issue, because they hadn't developed a formal uniform licence fee for such uses.)
It's not often that one can find evidence to back up once personal memories, but let me assure you the BBS community was aware of these issues. I also recall that Adobe announced that they had obtained a licence from Unisys at about this period. This was long before any WWW browser included GIF support.
1994 marks when the offical GIF pricesheet emerged, and the PNG project started (your ref). The fact this took 4 years backs up my point.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
It would not take all that long for existing open web standards to be adopted under the IETF, or at least another group functioning like the IETF if IETF doesn't want to take on the web standards. Either way, I'm sure there will be lots of volunteers to do the work.
The well (of open standards) is not going to dry up, even though most businesses are drinking from the well (even while some are trying to dig their own). Too bad a few come along and try to poison the open well, perhaps to get those businesses who drink from the open well to go drink from a pay well.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I think Douglas Adams described this "public comment" period best in "The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy":
..."
Mr Prosser said: "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions
or protests at the appropriate time you know."
"Appropriate time?" hooted Arthur. "Appropriate time? The first I
knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday. I
asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no he'd
come to demolish the house. He didn't tell me straight away of
course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me
a fiver. Then he told me."
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning
office for the last nine month."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see
them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your
way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually
telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find
them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom
of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a
sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
Ahmed had wasted his first wish foolishly, and his second wish
...", he said as he paused, thinking carefully to make
just to undo his first. Now he had one more wish remaining and
he was determined to do it right this time. He was now determined
to do something for others instead of for himself. He saw the
suffering in his desert town. There was only one well in the
town, and it was frequently drying up, or so everyone was told by
the old man who owned it. The old man charged a handsome price
to drink from the well; only on the days it was flowing.
"I wish
sure he did not make yet another mistake, for he had no fourth
wish with which to correct any mistake. "I wish for a well which
shall flow abundantly at all times, and provide water for all the
people, and cannot be owned by anyone, or taxed or otherwise held
for any ransom."
The genie acknowledged his wish and promptly vanished, never to be
seen again. Now he wondered if he would have what he wished for
as he emerged from his small tent to find a noise near the center
of town. So he went to see what this was.
When he arrived at the center of town, he saw before him a sight
never had anyone seen in any desert town before. Right in the
center of town there was a might gusher of water springing forth.
So much water that it was flowing down one of the streets and went
flowing out into the desert for a mile before drying up.
No one had known that it was Ahmed who had wished for this. Even
he was unsure that it was his wish that had brought such a bounty.
He told no one. Surely they would not believe him anyway. But
his real desire was for his town to prosper and be happy, and so
it was. And so, Ahmed was happy.
For 10 years the well did flow. Night and day it did flow. The
trade routes across the desert changed over the years to come by
way of the town. The people had built a great trough to make it
so a thousand camels could drink from the water at the same time.
No one had even seen a hundred camels at one time before the day
the great well sprang up. Now there were hundreds of traders and
thousands of camels. The more that drank from the well, the more
it gushed forth.
No one paid for any water, but the people of the town became rich
anyway, because so much trade came by that everything else was
being bought and sold. The town prospered greatly, and even Ahmed
had become richer than his very first wish had made him.
Why was the old man digging a new well? He had toiled on it for
two years, he and his six sons and twenty grandsons. They already
had one well that flowed only some, and now another? But water
did come from his new well regularly, but only one bucket at a
time as before. Why was he doing this, Ahmed wondered.
Another year had passed and not only was the town prospering, but
even nearby towns which had no magic wells were also prospering
just because the trade routes were larger than they ever had been.
Ahmed travelled to see the wonders of his magic well and how it
had affected all the people in so many towns. There was plenty
of trade through all the land, and so many new things to be traded
that even Ahmed could not have imagined to wish for had he even a
thousand wishes.
Ahmed had travelled for almost a year in his land and was now
returning home to his town which was now thirty times larger than
it was many years before. He looked forward to sleeping again in
his house, which had replaced his small tent. But as he arrived
home, he saw what he could not yet imagine.
A long line of people had formed in front of the well the old man
and his family had dug up. He was bring up water from his well,
and charging more for this water than he had ever charged before.
And the people were paying for it. Ahmed came to one man in the
line and ask why? The man said "I must drink, and here is the
place for water."
"What of the great magic well?" Ahmed asked, careful to not say he
had wished for one that would flow forever. "Is it not flowing?"
"It is" the man in line said, "but it is poison".
Terrified, Ahmed rushed into the center of town only to see the
well still gushing forth, but no one drinking of it, nor anyone
watering their camels, nor filling their flasks. Walls had been
built up around it. As Ahmed approach the well to check the water
someone recognized him and came to him and warned him. "Over a
thousand people have died after you left." he said. "The poison
is slight, but if you drink more than one drink every two days it
will cause you a horrible sickness, and if you continue, you will
surely die, as did my wife and half of my children."
"How did this happen?" Ahmed demanded to know. "The old man who
has the other wells, it must be he who has done this." came the
terrifying answer. "He came to the well one day with a small
golden chalice and filled it, then poured it back in and laughed."
The man continued, "that day two thousand became sick, and the
next day three hundred people and three thousand camels died."
As the years went on, the great well did continue to flow. It did
not stop, not even in the greatest of droughts and famines. The
old man now had three wells from which he sold water, and owned
almost all the land in and around the town. No one was allowed to
dig new wells. Most of the traders stopped coming. Few people
remained in the town. The riches had come to an end, except for
one family. The old man now had three wells and they flowed as
well as any well normally did. His business was brisk, and it
made him and his family rich. He was even richer than he was in
the time of the great well. But no one else was.
But soon the town dwindled to just a few people. The old man had
passed away, and most of his family moved on to other towns in the
land. Two of his sons stayed, but without the traders coming in
such numbers as during the great well, even they were no longer
prospering.
Ahmed was thirsty, and grabbed two coins and went down to the well
still run by the old man's two sons. "One drink" he asked, as he
held out his hand offering the two coins. "Sorry, the well is not
flowing today. Come back tomorrow and bring four coins." Ahmed
wondered if maybe he should just take one drink from the magic
well. But he knew he could not do that as often as he needed to
drink.
And Ahmed soon moved away to another town, not wanting to even see
the great well anymore, for it was such an ugly sight.
Today, the ideas of the thousands are the great well of bounty
that flows into our technological economy. We all prosper from
such a well, but no one prospers above the others. It is shared
and we all prosper equally in our own way. Those who would want
to change things so the well flows only for them would seek to
stop the well from flowing. Since they cannot stop it, the best
they can do is poison it. Everyone prospers when everyone shares
in that prosperity. Poison the well of ideas, and the prosperity
only comes to those who have the poison. But even their level of
prosperity, while more than the others, will diminish.
So many patents do not serve to advance ideas, but only serve to
corner markets. Most patents do not bring water to the well, but
only poison it.
Technology runs at such a pace the patent office can no longer do
the things it needs to do. The patent office just leaves it up to
the courts to decide which is valid and which is not, so they will
just issue all but the most obviously duplications. Few ever get
taken to court because the cost of doing that is so high. Patents
may be intended to advance the science and the arts, but today
they are not doing this at a level anywhere near what should be
expected from the number issued. One of the greatest advances we
have seen in the last several years, the internet, has advanced
the science and the arts with virtually no patents at all.
Unpoisoned ideas are what makes us all prosper, and when we all
share in that prosperity, then it is the greatest prosperity.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Another agrees with Alan Cox.
For those who don't want to dig through the whole W3C proposal, here
is their basic justification for this idea. In the spirit of Noam
Chomsky, I have attempted to translate what they are really saying. I
think the agenda is pretty clear.
<w3c> The sine qua non of the Web revolution is the open standards
environment on which the Web is built and continues to grow. The
Web's open technical standards have developed through the open,
collaborative process created by the World Wide Web Consortium. As
Web technology has become more commercially critical and the impact
of software and business process patents are felt more strongly in
the Web development arena, W3C believes it is necessary to adopt a
more comprehensive policy and process for addressing the
relationship between the open technical Recommendations developed
by W3C and patent rights held by both W3C Members and others.
</w3c>
<translation> "sine qua non" means "something absolutely indispensable
or essential." (source: www.m-w.com) But the W3C can, in just two
more paragraphs, show us that this revolution is now over and the
new standards will be "nil sine numine" (nothing without the divine
will). We know who the divine are and it's not you and me.
</translation>
<w3c> The root of the challenge posed by patents in any standards
arena is that participants in a standards body will be unwilling
and unable to work collaboratively if, at the end of the process,
the jointly-developed standard can only be implemented by meeting
licensing terms that are unduly burdensome, unknown at the
beginning or even the end of the design process, or considered
unreasonable. At the same time, many Members invest significant
research effort in the development of their own intellectual
property portfolios, so are concerned about protecting and
benefiting from proprietary technology they have developed or
acquired.
</w3c>
<translation> Michele Herman (Microsoft), Scott Peterson (HP),
Tony Piotrwoski (Philips) and Helene Plotka Workman (Apple) and
others who form the W3C can't work together on an open standard
because they really would rather patent the technology. In fact,
sometimes one of them even stabs the others in the back at the last
minute by saying "Thank you for helping us develop this standard
and for helping us promote it. Now guess what. We've got it
patented! Ha Ha Ha!"
What they want to do is get each other to agree ahead-of-time that
this or that standard is going to be patented. They'll probably
take turns deciding which company gets to own the patent. To
justify this, they say, it's expensive to do this research.
I'm sure research like this is expensive, but if expensive research
is worth it, the market will accept it and make it a defacto
standard. If the research is patented the research has to be even
more valuable to the public or it won't be accepted as a
standard. But no argument is given to the effect that we will get
more or better research done if that research comes with the
blessing of the W3C. They just want to get paid for the research
they are doing. That's not objectionable, but trying to get paid by
hijacking a previously open standards body has the ugly smell of a
meat packer bribing the USDA.
</translation>
<w3c> In developing a new patent policy for W3C Activities, our goal
is to affirm the Web community's longstanding preference for
Recommendations that can be implemented on a royalty-free (RF)
basis. Where that is not possible, the new policy will provide a
framework to assure maximum possible openness based on reasonable,
non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing terms.
</w3c>
<translation> When our large coporate partners give the signal, we
will march in step, salute, and endorse a patented technology as
part of a standard.
</translation>
<w3c> The second decade of the Web has already demonstrated that
patents will be a factor in the ongoing development of the World
Wide Web infrastructure. A variety of factors suggest that the Web
will be increasingly affected by the patent process. The Patent
Policy Working Group (PPWG) has identified the following
significant factors:
Convergence: The Web had its origins in the personal computer
software industry, where patents had seldom been a factor in
development dynamics. However, as the Web comes into contact with
the telecommunications, broadcast media and consumer electronics
industries, the tradition of patenting technology from those
industries will likely be carried over to the Web. Rise in patent
issuance: Patent offices, led by the U.S. PTO, are issuing patents,
especially in the software sector, at record rates. Experience of
Internet-related standards bodies: A number of standards bodies
including W3C, IETF, the WAP Forum, and others, have encountered
potential barriers to acceptance of standards because of licensing
requirements perceived as onerous. Popularity of business method
patents: Beginning with the State Street decision in the United
States and continuing through high-profile litigation between
Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com, business method patents have
become increasingly significant factor in the ecommerce
marketplace. These factors make it clear that the W3C must have a
clear and effective policy to address the inevitable increase in
patent issues that will come before individual Working Groups and
the Membership as a whole. </w3c>
<translation>
Beyond the traditional software companies, lots of other big media companies also want patents.
Developers don't accept standards that have LARGE patent fees
associated with them. (We'll try to give them ones that have
smaller fees)
Wow, there are lots of software patents being issued - some of them
are really idiotic. This is a gold mine we don't want to miss out
on.
It's funny. None of this is a logical argument for their
position. They are simply stating what is going on the
industry. Companies like to patent.
</translation>
<w3c> Importance of interoperability for core infrastructure, lower
down the stack: Preservation of interoperability and global
consensus on core Web infrastructure is of critical importance. So
it is especially important that the Recommendations covering
lower-layer infrastructure be implementable on an RF
basis. Recommendations addressing higher-level services toward the
application layer may have a higher tolerance for RAND terms.
Better disclosure: A clear process, to which Members are committed
and/or bound to ensure better disclosure of essential patents as a
condition of Membership, is vital. Access for general public (not
just Members): Licensing terms for essential technology should be
available on a non-discriminatory basis to W3C Members and
non-Members alike. Working Group flexibility: One patent licensing
framework may not be appropriate to every W3C Working
Group. Therefore, Working Groups should have flexibility to specify
minimum licensing terms as part of their work. These intellectual
property rights requirements should then become the basis for
Advisory Committee and Director review of the resulting
specification.
</w3c>
<translation> These vague and unenforceable guidelines will protect
the process from getting out of hand.
Our member companies won't screw each other by keeping silent about
their patent intentions until the end.
We'll let the public comment, but we can ignore what they say.
Each working group can rewrite the rules whenever they want.
</translation>
The W3C is sowing the seeds of their own destruction. What we are
likely to get are lots patents of not all that great commercial
appeal. If a company has an idea for a patent with lots of commercial
appeal, they won't put it in the W3C which might restrict the royalty
fee they can charge. If something is truly revolutionary, it will
follow normal patent routes. The market will decide. If something is
less than truly revolutionary, these companies will try to get the W3C
to endorse it and hope that that will fool people into using it. Then
they'll spring the royalty fees on us.
Then we'll all hate the W3C and it will become a large rotting useless
body. The web will "mature" like other technolgies where innovation
happens as often as it did in Europe during the middle ages.
Okay, it's after the deadline, but in mailing list
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:51:42 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200110010551.XAA04108@aztec.santafe.edu>
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Subject: W3C patent policy
If the World-Wide Web is indeed to remain "world-wide", it must not
depend on restricted standards. The W3C cannot prevent others from
developing or using restricted standards, but it should not lend its
name to them.
Therefore, the W3C should adopt a policy that all important standards
must have free patent licenses (and thus allow free software).
Perhaps there are some standards for specialized kinds of
business-to-business communication which are sufficiently unimportant
that it may not be disastrous if they are patented. These standards
do not really deserve the term "world-wide", but they may still be
worth the W3C's attention. But standards that really are of
world-wide importance must be free.
The "back-door RAND" problem pointed out by Adam Warner is especially
crucial. When the W3C decides that a certain standard ought to be
patent-free, no circumstances should be allowed to annul that
decision.
Aside from these substantive changes in policy, the W3C should also
stop using the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory", because that
term white-washes a class of licenses that are normally neither
reasonable nor non-discriminatory. It is true that they do not
discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate
against the free software community, and that makes them unreasonable.
I suggest the term "uniform fee only", or UFO for short, as a replacement for
"reasonable and non-discriminatory".
Janet's comment is perhaps best attributed to the LinuxToday forum, where it's gotten several more replies. Several were even cross posted to the W3C comments list:
It's been pointed out that most of the comments say substantially more than the "Don't" which Janet mischaracterizes them to be. And also that the short-circuiting of the W3C process in this case is atypical and suspicious, particularly when combined with the way notice for this fundamental change was slipped under everyone's radar.
I want to know who the smart cookie was who came up with that! It's kinda brilliant.