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
I personally feel that RAND is dead wrong; however, if it must come to pass, then perhaps
here is a compromise: Allow for royalty free use of the patent, but only if the software is licensed under the GPL. As much as Microsoft has bashed GPL in the past, this is probably the best option for the big boys. They could claim to "support open source" software but still keep their ability to charge royalties for proprietary implementations.
Note that allowing royalty free linking with any ole open source license will allow proprietary applications to "get around" the licensing restrictions. So, I can see why they would require GPL, but nothing less than GPL. One could also use the patent royalty free with any software that had a GPL compatible license, under the restriction that the aggregate license must also be GPL compatible. They may also have to add a clause that the source code for software must be available for download under the GPL when used as a server side process. As this would also give a "loop hole" allowing proprietary uses of the patented technology.
I don't think I'm going to dignify this idiocy with much of a response, other than to say:
Software is different
You don't need huge investments to create software. The industry was very prosperous on its own for decades before patents were introduced.
The real issue here is whether we should corrupt world-wide standards with an obviously corrupt patent process. The answer is that we should not.
Companies holding patents seek to legitimize those patents by having standards make use of them. I think that a patent on a technique is automatic grounds for rejection of that technique as a basis for a world-wide standard. If a company chooses to patent a technique and does not assign that patent to the W3C, they can forget about it ever becoming a standard, period.
I think you misunderstand the proposal. The W3C holds, and will hold, patends on *nothing*. They are proposing to including in their collection of approved standards patents held by other entities. This would allow those entities to charge anyone who wants to be compliant with the W3C to pay to adhere to the standards.
Standards that aren't free don't work, period.
This isn't at all a question about America vs. the world. If this proposal passes, a patent held by an off shore entity could just as well be made into a standard by the the W3C as a patend held by an American company.
[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
Check it out here:
http://www.userfunded.org/w3cloud.html
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
This proposal to introduce patents into WWW standards greatly concerns the future of the Web. What will happen to the great soap box? Will I have to pay royalties to post my web page? Will I be forced to use a certain OS and web browser to view some web sites and then maybe another browser for others? Will my hard drive become clogged with endless browser plugins. Each allowing me to view separately patented web technology? I see the possibility of greater costs to the web users. I may have to pay greater software and ISP costs.
If the World Wide Web is to become the media of the future. What will happen if large coporations have the patents to control its content? Does everyone still feel that their voice will always be heard?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Given that now they have extended their feedback period, take the time to let them know that this is *BAD*. However, please take a few minutes to create an intelligent response rather than firing off an "This sucks, you are all corrupt idiots" type comment.
Also, read the already posted comments. There are many well thought out replies that nicely summarize *why* this is bad; I would certainly recommend reading Alan Cox's post which presents some very good arguments against this. I personally don't think I have anything fundamentally new to add (+ I only found out about the opportunity to comment after the original deadline) but I am planning to post a comment stating my view that this proposal is fundamentally flawed and refer to other comments which I agree with.
Above all, let them know that there is a *huge* number of people out there who value open standards and don't care to play the 'You need IP protection in order to stimulate research' game (as was stated/posted by some MSFT drone).
We have enough boring shopping malls already; we don't need to turn the internet into another one when it could be much more and be a truly open medium.
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.
...it should be putting forth free, open standards for the obvious reason: once it starts adopting patented "standards" that cost people money to use, individuals or groups will run an end route and create a free, open standard that effectively replaces the W3C's version of it, rendering the W3C's version worthless.
They're inching closer to obsoletion, anyhow. XML, XSLT and SOAP all really do feel like they were designed by a comittee of comittees who weren't exactly sure what the other guy was up to.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
-a requirement for disclosure provisions
This is a good thing, we don't want to have the same crap that Rambus pulled with RDRAM.
-a procedure for launching new standards development activities as Royalty-Free Licensing Mode activities.
I'm assuming previous standards already fall under this category and this is just a way to clear any misunderstandings (good thing?)
-a procedure for launching new standards development activities as Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing Mode activities
BAD THING! Everyone is going to want to push their standards over to RAND so that they can make money on their technology patents, ultimately shrinking the future number of open standards. They state: When a Working Group wishes to produce a specification that is not Royalty-Free, the proposed policy requires the charter to provide rationale for the choice of RAND. What will be the rationale? This isn't clear and many standards you find today (HTML, XML, etc.) could have fallen under RAND if it existed back then.
W3C should only be concerned with Royalty Free / Open standards. If a company owns a patent on the technology they control the standard. How does W3C plan on forcing a company to stick to a standard where ultimately the company controls the technology. This is just going to confuse current and future developers.
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:
Is it in any way possible to form a standards body composed entirely of open source people? With all these things W3C has aptly shown that its relevance days should be over.
Things shouldn't be left in the hands of the big corporations. There are more than enough examples that their interests are in their pockets instead of their customers. So why do people keep paying attention to them? Let them make all the flawed, selfish standards that they want. Why the heck should they dictate the laws? Can't open source/free software people think for themselves, and standardize things on their technical merits instead of their money-making merits?
Oh well, in an ideal world there would be a non-profit corporation (is this a paradox?) allowing people to work on their projects full-time (the FSF doesn't cut it, because RMS seems a little too much of a control freak to me. I may be wrong). No shareholders, no screwing of people... Ahh, those would be the days...
The problem with this is not that anyone is being denied royalties for their patents, but rather the entire W3C becomes nothing more than a sales effort for those companies that comprise the W3C.
At that point, if the W3C is a not-for-profit corporation, a legal challenge could be raised that it is no longer a standards body but a trade organization.
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
I'm all for the concept of protecting an author's right to prevent others from directly profiting from their work, but the whole concept of IP as something to be locked up is wrong, and I'll go so far as to say that it's a VIRUS, an evil MEME.
Those who would allow patenting of software, math, etc... are just short sighted, and will eventually get reap what they sow.
--Mike--
It's clear from the community response to the draft "W3C Patent Policy Framework Working Draft" that we aren't ready for a policy concerning how patent-encumbered technology can be included in W3C recommendations. There first needs to be an open and frank discussion of _whether_ patent-encumbered technology should be part of W3C recommendations at all. Given the lack of discussion over the general issue of software patents in web standards, this draft is premature.
"Working Group Flexibility", the final "concensus point" given in the draft appears the be heart of the problem. The authors of the draft appear to agree that individual working groups should "have the flexibility to specify minimum licensing terms as part of their work". This statement may be self-evident to the authors, but it's by no means self evident to the Internet community as a whole. Any policy that takes this position as a starting point will meet heavy resistance.
Since the very basic principles that form the basis for this working draft are at best contraversial, the appropriate response on the part of the W3C would be to withdraw the working draft temporarily and begin a consultation process to determine what role patents have in Internet standards. Until that question has been answered, discussion of detailed procedures is premature.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
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.
One of the main problem of the Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) policy is that as soon as the fee is not 0, it effectively discriminates again Open-Source Software. So the only Really Authentically Non-Discriminatory policy is to ask for patents to be licensed for free if they are to be used by W3C recommendations.
Another problem is: what happens to the Open-Source implementations that W3C used to provide as proofs that its recommendations worked? Are we supposed to trust closed source software now?
I am afraid we are just reaping the logical consequences of Microsoft, Adobe and al. joining W3C and playing nice for a while: now they are trying to buy it.
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
Standards by their essence are supposed to unify means of doing the same things so people could cooperate
When you take a step that will lead to creation of another standard for the same thing (GIF/PNG case?) or to deny the use of the standard to anybodywilling to cooperate, you are denying the two very reasons for creating a standard. This step of W3C makes no sense except as a means of self-destruction.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
First of all, something like at least part of this proposal has to happen: evidentally, the W3C hasn't previously had a patent policy, and could have simply made a Recommendation that was patent-encumbered. Of course, there would have been an outcry, and they'd probably have had to just sit on it for twenty years, but it was possible.
The RAND theory makes sense to me: if people will make money off of a standard, why shouldn't they have to pay the people who provided necessary research for it?
However, I think the main issue is that there is an important segment of the community which is not going to make money by use of the standard. For this segment, there is no reasonable royalty, and, so long as the implementation does not enter the segement of the community which will make money from it, no reasonable restrictions.
Proposal: include in the RAND section
* The following license must be offered:
if the licensee either does not distribute the implementation, or does not charge money for the implementation above the cost of its distribution,
the licensee is granted a non-transferable license to use the patented technology in an implementation of the Recommendation, without any need to contact the patent-holder.
(IANAL; this should be rewritten to contain all the magic words and remove the loopholes for commercial software producers)
With this clause, developers would be able to implement the Recommendations, users would be able to use the implementations, but anyone selling even a free implementation would have to pay royalties. I have not actually checked whether this clause would be compatible with the GPL (which doesn't seem likely to really want a more general license to patents than this, anyway); it would have to be tweaked to be compatible, if not.
This is the letter I sent. I considered saying "RAND SUCKS, you are EVIL, and W3 is a PUPPET of M$!!!!!" but this seemed more appropriate, true, and likely to be considered intelligently.
The Working Draft was brought to my attention today, so please excuse what has been a rather hasty reading of the document. I applaud your efforts to have a clear process for discovering and handling patents as part of the W3 Process. However, I have some serious disagreements with the RAND licensing terms. The problem with RAND as it is currently written is that it does not allow for open source implementations.
As a developer, I find open source tools to often be the most important ones I bring to a project. This is due to the ease with which they can be evaluated and brought into a project as well as the guarantee that I will be able to deploy them no matter what happens to the creator of the tools. They also place an unchanging floor on the deployment cost of that component and allow me to deploy without waiting for license negotiations to finish. In particular, Apache.org is usually the first place I and my coworkers go when we need third-party software. It is valuable to be able to prototype all parts on Linux and deploy on Linux, Solaris or Windows, depending on my client's needs.
While I recognize the argument that RAND is tolerable for application layer services, I have to disagree. When I'm writing an application, I use components at all levels. Application layer software has a tendency to creep into server software for various purposes. For example, a graphics reader may be needed to convert an image to a different format or to modify the image.
I am also concerned about developing standards which are usable world-wide. Users in many parts of the world do not have the money to pay for commercial software. Many countries do not have the legal infrastructure to enforce patent laws. Open source software allows them to be first-class citizens on the World Wide Web, both as content producers and consumers. It can also allow them to localize software. If all the software which uses a particular W3 standard is produced by a few primarily American companies, many languages and cultures will be shut out because localization wouldn't be cost effective. This makes the standard less of a world-wide standard and more of an industry consortium.
I recommend one of the following changes:
1. Explicitly spell out the situations under which a RAND license is acceptable. I think the license is acceptable when all components have RF alternatives. For example, a PNG file may be written or read using RAND algorithms-- and the best compression algorithms may even be proprietary-- but PNG files can be written using RF algorithms, while RF PNG readers can read any PNG file.
2. Require that all RAND licenses allow anyone to create a royalty-free open source implementations of the Recommendation, or to release an implementation under such a license.
My second recommendation is probably the more workable. Commercial, closed-source software would still require license payments. By using a restrictive license such as GPL, patent holders could maximize the use of royalty-paying implementations. It would, for example, allow me to prototype my software with a GPL-based library but only sell it using a commercial library. Care must be taken, however, to make sure that the licenses RAND would allow are truly open source and compatible with other open source software.
Again, I thank you for your efforts to make a sound, workable patent policy and wish you luck.
David Leppik
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.
I own and make money from software patents. But not from the Web, even though my unpatented "Nagle algorithm" is in every TCP implementation in the world. Patented technology should not be in standardized interfaces. It inhibits their adoption and causes the technology base to fork. That makes the "standard" non-standard.
John Nagle
Menlo Park, CA
The W3C and the Patent Policy Working Group represent a diverse range of opinions. This includes those who feel that all W3C Recommendations should be Royalty-Free, and those who believe that paying Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) fees to implement W3C
Recommendations is sensible and even productive policy.
W3C recognizes that a Royalty-Free environment was essential to the growth of the Web, and the contributions of the open source developer community have been critical to its success. W3C also recognizes that software patents exist (and patent issues have become more revalent with the growth of the Web), and ignoring them will do more harm than good. W3C is working hard to reach consensus in an area where there is an obvious tension, and to strike a balance among diverse interests.
Is compromise possible here? No it is not, you either do or you don't base your standards on royalty free methods or you don't. I'd like them to show the harm done, and ask the company in question why they insist on causing such harm.
So which group is in control?
A RAND license is common among standards organizations.
Everyone is doing it, why shouldn't we? Nice logic, but hardly expected from a standards body. Shame! Re read the Cox letter, and let them have it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7373745.html
"The W3C proposal is backed by some of the largest technology makers in the industry. The working group that developed the proposal includes a who's who of technology: Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Philips, Apple, AT&T, IBM, ILOG, Nortel Networks, The Open Group, Reuters and Sun Microsystems, along with W3C affiliates."
I work for one of the companies above, and I was a bit upset to see its name attached to all this. I found out who the person collaborating on that document is and called them up. It was interesting to chat with them and find out what exactly the above paragraph means.
The representative of my company to the W3C didn't really seem aware of the backlash until after I told him about it. He stated that he was simply participating in this in an advisory role, not really strongly backing or opposing the proposal. This seems different from what the CNET article says: "The W3C proposal is backed by some of the largest technology makers in the industry."
He simply said that my company's patent lawyers compared this new W3C policy to the policies of other standards group my company's regularly involved in, such as the ITU, and commented that this is similar. Since my company is used to working with ITU and other big standards bodies, they did not find it strange that this W3C proposal is similar to their policies. And that seemed to be the extent of their involvement, they're basically an observer, strictly in an advisory role, he didn't describe us as a "backer".
The statement:
"The W3C proposal is backed by some of the largest technology makers in the industry. The working group that developed the proposal includes a who's who of technology"
... seems grossly overblown and unnecessarily alarming to me after speaking to a person who actually represents one of these companies. Reading that paragraph it seems like a vast corporate conspiracy is supporting this.
On the other hand, he told me that "RAND" is not defined in this W3C proposal any more than in most other standards bodies, and there, the definition is left up in the air and disputes are often settled in court. In addition, the participant I spoke to said that the issue of someone failing to disclose a pattent is a touchy subject right now at the W3C, so I take it there are not clear rules on that. My obvious personal recommendation is that RAND be clearly defined, and that failures to disclose patents be "punished" by making the standard RF.
The problem seems to me more like a lack of precision rather than deliberate foul-play. Speaking of, my company's representative said that this proposal has been posted since August, and not kept secret like some suggested.
If anyone here also works for one of these companies, you may want to call up your own representative, for interest's sake.
Since GPL/LGPL doesn't prohibit you from selling it, it also doesn't prohibit you from making money off of it from other venues. (I.E. Charging for media and support.)
Using your idea, someone like Red Hat would have to pay the royalty which creates a nightmare morass of trying to keep track of their sales, etc and paying. They are not deriving direct income from the patent protected work (because they're NOT selling it...) but they still have to pay it- which I have a problem with.
Royalties should be charged against the direct sale of something- just like it is in the real world. If I buy a patented device from Wal-Mart, they don't have to pay royalties on the item, the people who made it and sold it originally did. It should be the same way with software patents. Therefore, any Free Software/Open Source that is not "sold" but is distributed freely should owe NOTHING on royalties (since it's not being sold itself.)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
1) shall be available to all implementers worldwide, whether or not
... students who would love to create an implementation but can't without the risk of being sued? Are you actually saying that some Okie college kid is going to have to pay The Man if he wants to write a piece of software that implements get_file_over_network()? Great. Scratch "all implementers".
they are W3C Members;
and
5) may be conditioned on payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory
royalties or fees;
are contradictory claims. Hell, (5) is a contradiction in and of itself since anything that is conditioned on payment discriminates against those who can't afford it. Combined with (1), however, this leads to questions.
Does "available to all implementers worldwide" include students?
Does "available to all implementers worldwide" include countries like Mexico who are already telling patent-holders where they can stick it? Or Cuba, where it is illegal in US law to do business? There is no way an implementer in Cuba could legally create an implementation of a standard based off of a patent held by a US patent holder -- not paying the patent holder would be illegal, and paying the patent holder would be illegal. Fuckin' great. Scratch "worldwide".
If you're going to include this RAND crap, then it needs to have exemptions for students, universitites, the worldwide poor, governments and government agencies, and those who write software for the public good. But then, who's left?
Why was this RAND stuff even included? Under what possible circumstance is the RF license deemed "not good enough"? The RF license already allows patented technologies to be included in a standard, and is already both "reasonable" AND "non-discriminatory". The ONLY difference between these licenses is the RAND cluse 5, and clause 5 is neither "reasonable" nor "non-discriminatory". Clause 5 is _inconsistent_ with RAND clause 1, and is therefore _unreasonable_. Clause 5 forbids some countries from creating implementations, and is therefore _discriminatory_. Scratch clause 5, scratch RAND, scratch all this contradictory garbage.
-Brian
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
It is better to have NO standard than a flawed, encumbered standard. The internet community can wait. And if members of that community are feeling impatient, then they can lobby the obstructing patent holders directly.
Anything else than this firm stance will ensure a slide down a slippery slope, ending up where any but the most trivial standard will be patent encumbered and ususable in free software.
(This was also mailed to www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org).
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
If I were a cynic, I would suggest that someone at w3c realized that they could get wonderful funding from MS and friends for a while if they became a mouthpiece, claiming that "yes - of course, MS is supporting open standards - the open standard _is_ $financial_supporter's_product!"
If I've missed anyone I shouldn't have, I'm sorry - blame tired eyes. I was particularly looking for comments by Brian Behlendorf, Eric Raymond, Larry Wall, Linus, Hakon Lie, Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, but if they were there I didn't see them.
OK, so what are we going to do about it?
We have to face the fact that these days commercial companies have a lot of power on the Web. If AOL/Time Warner/Netscape, Microsoft, CNN, the movie studios and the big music companies get together to invent new, patented (in the US) Web technologies which won't interoperate with Open Source technology, then 90% of the Web using public will not notice. If they do notice, they'll blame our software for 'not working'.
So we have to make a determined, co-ordinated grab for the moral high ground. I'm prepared to bet that W3C will be a bit shaken by the furore they've brewed up here, and I would endorse everyone else's suggestions that anyone who hasn't responded yet to the consultation document does so now, in calm, polite, grammatical, spelling-corrected - words, explaining why you see 'reasonable and non discriminatory' license fees as unacceptable.
This may in itself be enough. I hope it will, but I think we should prepare against the possibility that it won't. What should we do? I believe we should take immediate steps to set up a new, independent, standards setting body for the Web spearheaded by people with a wide international reputation with the avowed intention of forking the standards base and maintaining free, open, standards for the Web. We should work to include the corporates who have already shown their commitment to Open Source into a broad coalition alongside the recognised open source projects, and seek to isolate Apple, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft (the companies who actually authored this proposal).
The long term objective is not to have two competing standards setting bodies: it is to hold over the W3C a credible threat of two competing standards setting bodies. In the face of that credible threat it's my opinion that W3C will rethink. If they don't, we would have to do this for real, but that is in my opinion very much a suboptimal option.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.