Slashdot Mirror
W3C Looking for More Patent Feedback
KjetilK writes: "The World Wide Web Consortium has posted a response to public comments it received. Part of the response is that the review period is extended to 11 October 2001. Continue to submit elaborate comments to the proposed policy, and make sure that the points made by the W3C are specifically addressed. Also, read the Patent Policy Framework proposal, the original announcement and background and the Patent Policy FAQ."
As a professional software developer making a living from being able to
develop platform-agnostic applications for the web, I am extremely alarmed to
see the W3C's proposed stance on patents & standards. With the proposed
changes in place the web will become more and more a showcase for large
corporations and will extinguish the independence and innovation that have
made the internet freely accessibly to anyone with a web browser (of any
flavour) and a dial-up account.
Indeed, with the proposals in place the web risks becoming a tool of a few
corporations (I think I don't need to list them specifically) and innovation
will largely be shut down. After a while, the W3C itself will cease to be
relevant, and I can hardly believe that is what is intended.
I urge you, therefore, to reject these proposals and show your organisation to
be one of integrity to the ideals of Tim Berners-Lee et al; be proud that you
are not just another tool of big business.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
I think more effort should be made to have more of tese documents available in multiple languages. Many of the documents, such as the Patent FAQ, are only available in english. If this is really an international consortium then it should be treated like one. I'm sure there are plenty of willing translators out there. Or maybe they could at least run it through Babblefish for the time being.
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cou
[2-4] Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) License
A RAND License:
* must be available to all implementers worldwide.
* must extend to all Essential Claims.
* may be limited to implementations of the recommendation, and to what is required by the recommendation.
* may be conditioned on a grant of a reciprocal license on RAND terms to all Essential Claims owned or controlled by the licensee and its affiliates.
* may be conditioned on payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory royalties or fees; and,
* may not impose any further conditions or restrictions on the use of any technology, IPRs, or other restrictions on behavior of the licensee; but,
* may include reasonable, customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as the following: audit (when relevant to fees), choice of law, and dispute resolution.
what's a reasonable amount for someone living in Nepal versus someone living in the USA?
don't do this royalty thing, it's opening a whole can of worms like enforcement and audits that beg for corporate sponsorship and involvement. Why invite a bunch of lawyers to ruin an otherwise great party? This in my mind will destroy what w3c's version of a "standard" really means.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Oh, please!
These aren't patents held by the W3C, but by member corporations. The W3C depends on consensus and its reputation as an authority to, as you put it, `defend their hold on web technology'. The W3C is a standards body, not a corporation!
You speak as if the W3C is there to make money itself -- it's not. It's there to set forth a set of agreed standards. One of the core properties of a good standard is that with enough skill, anybody can implement it freely. Including patents in standards breaks this freedom. The only way that patent should be allowed in a standard is if the patent is given up by its owner -- there is not other way that freedom of implementation can be maintained.
You also seem to think that the W3C is an american body. It's not, after all TBL is English for a start! No, it's an international body comprising of people from all over the world. The primary bodies involved are MIT (American), CERN (European), and KEIO (Japanese). Nor is the World Wide Web owned by the Americans -- it's global.
Your belief in the need for patents to encourage progress in our industry is flawed. Europe doesn't have software patents yet Ireland is the world's largest exporter of software. Our research efforts are just as fruitful as that of the US. Our industry is as fruitful.
Bill Gates (correct me if I'm wrong) said that software patents were needed because progress proceeded so quickly in the industry. However, that is the very reason why software patents should be rejected.
I don't like trolls and mod against me if you like, but I'd prefer if you'd reply.
One thing that concerns me about RAND is related to the issue of SSSCA. Undoubtably, if SSSCA is passed, those that are in control of patents regarding digital right authenication methods are going to push heavily for inclusion of their property into the specs. That means every piece of hardware and software will have an added 'tax' akin to the RAMBUS memory tax, and will drastically increase the price of hardware and software.
Similarly , if RAND passes, not only would the cost of software go up because of payments, but it would be very hard for open-source programmers to get their foot in the door. Sure, this won't affect the core functionality of the web (HTML and XML), but who knows what the next future technology will be that will make a big difference on the web? I strongly urge everyone that cares about open development to reply to this.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I find it interesting that the W3C is saying "Why didn't we publisize this? We did, you just didn't hear it!"
/. not publisized this, it would have quietly slipped away like the DMCA did, and they would have said "but nobody complained at the time!" Instead, they got hammered and have had to back-pedal a bit.
/. - bitch to the people that matter.
I think this DOES show the power of public outcry - had
Just remember, don't just bitch on
www.eFax.com are spammers
If the w3c begins to support non-free standards, the free software crowd will look elsewhere. In turn, this just leaves the w3c as a "yes man" for Microsoft and a pocketfull of big money plugin authors. I suspect that, shortly after, w3c would find themselves optimized out of the development process.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
This is yet another example. Patents are good. They help inefficient startups with a new idea survive long enough to be competitive. Before patents, companies kept everything secret to protect themselves and science was stifled. Patents allow companies to protect their IP but for this protection they must open their invention to inspection. I would love to see all the proprietary, closed algorithms be patented and open sourced. That way they could still protect their work, but people could learn from their code. Innovation would be much faster. But patents should NEVER be applied to open standards. The patent should be in the implementation of a standard not the standard itself. Patenting an algorithm is OK, patenting the data structure it's processing shouldn't be.
W3 has forgotten its roots and its goals. They should be ashamed for even suggesting this.
Perhaps patents do create prosperity, but I suspect the post was sarcasm rather than trolling.
Let's examine some of the assertions in the post.
The company with the most capitalization has the most patents, so the patents must be the cause? Isn't it just as likely that heavily capitalized companies apply for lots of patents.
Without patents, people have no reason to form companies. That's just silly. People with no intention to patent anything form companies in order to make money. Patents are a tool not and end.
Without patents companies have no incentive to do research. Doesn't that ignore the fact that most new products do not involve patented technology.
Patents do provide an incentive to innovate, but they are not the only incentive.
The final paragraph ought to make it clear what th e posters actual position is. He's being sarcastic. Did you miss the point.