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."
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.
-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.
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--
* may be conditioned on payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory royalties or fees;
Yeah,
just like some company, which created a new technology with a nice pricing policy and at least one well known founder.
One wonders if they have a patent pending.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
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
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.