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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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