HP, Apple Drop Support for Royalties on Web Standards
Posted by
michael
on from the peer-pressure-works dept.
Medeii writes: "This article on CNET states that Apple and HP have both decided to withdraw their support for the recommendation. Both companies issued statements supporting the development of royalty-free web standards. Both were, interestingly, also authors of the current recommendation."
Good for them
by
Mr.+Punch
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I wonder what happened to make them change their minds. Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Interesting.
Re:Good for them
by
TheAwfulTruth
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
No, they don't. Ever. HP and Apple obviously think that this change of heart will benefit them. I don't know how it will or won't. But I can assure you that was the only reason for making the descision. Sometimes "People will like us more and maybe buy more X from us" is the reason. Sometimes "It will make us money in royalties" is the reason. Whatever it is, it is always made with what seems to be the best interest of the company at the time. If it happens to be the right thing then they look good, if not, they look evil. But BEING good or evil is NEVER a reason for a company to make a descision. Those traits are thrust upon them by outside watchers.
-- Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Re:Good for them
by
martyn+s
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Whether it happens on a conscious level or not is open for debate, but that's how people operate too. Whether it's evolution or whatever, the only reason people might do something good is that it will benefit them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not machiavellian or anything, and I don't use this as the guiding principle of my actions. I do something good because I think it's the right thing to do. But as an afterthought, I know that the only reason I thought that action was good was because it would help me. That's why you try to return a favor to someone who's nice. And both parties will often each get more than they gave. If my rambling was even remotely interesting to you read about Game Theory here.
What about Quicktime?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I thought Apple wanted Quicktime to become the web standard for video. Apple is now deciding that it won't happen, unless they plan to relicense the Sorenson codec as free to use for all?
Big Bad Borg....
by
wowbagger
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Sounds like both Apple and HP looked at how many standards Microsoft was going to own, and came to their senses.
Either that, or the constant barrage of hostile emails had an effect.
If I had to bet, I'd bet on the former, not the latter....
Definately a Surprise
by
TheLOTR
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This definately comes as a surprise given the direction that HP has taken as of late. Many of the people I have known who work there consider Carly's main interest to be profit, and EVERYTHING else comes second. The idea that HP would push a royalty-free system is a wonderful surprise.
What patents do these guys have, anyway?
by
LoveMe2Times
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Can anybody clue me in on what relevant patents HP or Apple has, anyway? Did they stand to benefit, or did they just all of a sudden go, "Hello! These might mean that we would have to pay out the nose too!" and make an abrupt about face? If HP and Apple aren't sitting on patents that might cover current or future web standards, who is? The article mentions that they collaborated with M$ for the original proposal, and I presume that they're sitting on more patents than we'd really like to think about. How does adoption of this proposal relate to the possibility of.Net becoming a web standard (if at all)?
Re:What patents do these guys have, anyway?
by
Alan+Partridge
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
in a funny way, Apple have ALWAYS had a big influence on web standards simply because so many web designers are working on the Mac. Funnily enough, MS' IE for the Mac was awarded for its good compliance - if only the PC version could boast likewise...
-- That was classic intercourse!
A quick peek at their wallets changed their minds.
by
thesolo
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This was definitely not a case of public outcry changing their opinion--Apple & HP have both been flamed to death before (think constant lawsuits & layoffs, respectively), with no policies changing. However, once they realized that they would NOT be the top players in this, and that they would probably wind up having to pay MS/Sun/InsertBigNameCompanyHere for their patents, it suddenly didn't look like such a good idea.
And you know what? I don't care about their reasoning. I'm just happy that they backed out of a horrible idea...even if it wasn't for the right reasons.
How are you qualified?
by
Bud+Dwyer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I hate to be a spoilsport, but exactly what qualifies you to serve on the Patent Policy Board? Do you have a law degree? Extensive industry experience? Or is this merely an attempt to appease the Open Source community by lowering standards for board members?
Kudoes and a question...
by
deitrahs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> From the peer-pressure-works dept.
Given the amount of fuss that's been raised by geeks everywhere, shouldn't this be from From the peer-to-peer-pressure-works dept.?
That said, I'm glad that the corps are coming to their senses. Enough people have grumbled stuff along the lines of "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the Web was built on open standards" and not enough of "let's get a rocket scientist to explain to the suits why this is bad".
It's only taken ten years, but I'm slightly enthused to see that the PHBs of the world are starting to notice that the grunts in the trenches are clued up on things flying below their radar, and hear those grunts out (even if the words are still too big and not quite buzzword-compliant enough for their tastes).
Cheers,
--bmc
Patents on the Web and IBM
by
AlastairBurt
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think two points are missing in the discussion of the issue of patents and web standards:
Software patents are not going to go away. The reason the W3C gives for putting forward the RAND policy is not without substance. The software world is in the midst of a land grab for lucrative patents. As such, it is inevitable that more and more formats that are used on the web are going to be encumbered by patents. The only question is whether the W3C is going to have a say on these formats. So I do not blame the W3C for putting forward the RAND. I blame legislators that have let software come under the scope of patents, and the voters who put the legislators in place.
Who is promoting patents? The RAND policy would obviously be a kick in the teeth to free software developers. So who is kicking free software? Is it Apple and HP? No. At least, not any longer. Is it that evil Microsoft? No. But it seems from the comments of Bruce Parens that one of the firms doing the kicking is the firm that possesses one of the biggest patent portfolios on the planet, IBM.
To me, the biggest threat to free software is not aggressive marketing tactics by the likes of Microsoft. The biggest threat comes from patents. Given that the voters obviously do not give a damn about software patents and the legislators will follow the lead of whatever lobbyist is sticking cash in their pocket, the only chance of a change in this issue is if a prominent software company were to say they thought that patents did not promote progress in the software industry. Which is why I think that IBM should be given the squeeze.
The free software community should make their concern on the matter clear to the decision makers within IBM. We do not need your trendy advertising campaigns. We do not need your journaling file system, we already have those. We do not even need your expensive Linux labs. What we want is the freedom to code.
IBM and any other company that would like to curry favour with free software developers should have one thing made clear: your cannot, in good conscience, support both free software and software patents.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what happened to make them change their minds. Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Interesting.
I thought Apple wanted Quicktime to become the web standard for video. Apple is now deciding that it won't happen, unless they plan to relicense the Sorenson codec as free to use for all?
Sounds like both Apple and HP looked at how many standards Microsoft was going to own, and came to their senses.
Either that, or the constant barrage of hostile emails had an effect.
If I had to bet, I'd bet on the former, not the latter....
www.eFax.com are spammers
This definately comes as a surprise given the direction that HP has taken as of late. Many of the people I have known who work there consider Carly's main interest to be profit, and EVERYTHING else comes second. The idea that HP would push a royalty-free system is a wonderful surprise.
Can anybody clue me in on what relevant patents HP or Apple has, anyway? Did they stand to benefit, or did they just all of a sudden go, "Hello! These might mean that we would have to pay out the nose too!" and make an abrupt about face? If HP and Apple aren't sitting on patents that might cover current or future web standards, who is? The article mentions that they collaborated with M$ for the original proposal, and I presume that they're sitting on more patents than we'd really like to think about. How does adoption of this proposal relate to the possibility of .Net becoming a web standard (if at all)?
This was definitely not a case of public outcry changing their opinion--Apple & HP have both been flamed to death before (think constant lawsuits & layoffs, respectively), with no policies changing. However, once they realized that they would NOT be the top players in this, and that they would probably wind up having to pay MS/Sun/InsertBigNameCompanyHere for their patents, it suddenly didn't look like such a good idea.
And you know what? I don't care about their reasoning. I'm just happy that they backed out of a horrible idea...even if it wasn't for the right reasons.
I hate to be a spoilsport, but exactly what qualifies you to serve on the Patent Policy Board? Do you have a law degree? Extensive industry experience? Or is this merely an attempt to appease the Open Source community by lowering standards for board members?
Given the amount of fuss that's been raised by geeks everywhere, shouldn't this be from From the peer-to-peer-pressure-works dept.?
That said, I'm glad that the corps are coming to their senses. Enough people have grumbled stuff along the lines of "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the Web was built on open standards" and not enough of "let's get a rocket scientist to explain to the suits why this is bad".
It's only taken ten years, but I'm slightly enthused to see that the PHBs of the world are starting to notice that the grunts in the trenches are clued up on things flying below their radar, and hear those grunts out (even if the words are still too big and not quite buzzword-compliant enough for their tastes).
Cheers,
--bmc
I think two points are missing in the discussion of the issue of patents and web standards:
To me, the biggest threat to free software is not aggressive marketing tactics by the likes of Microsoft. The biggest threat comes from patents. Given that the voters obviously do not give a damn about software patents and the legislators will follow the lead of whatever lobbyist is sticking cash in their pocket, the only chance of a change in this issue is if a prominent software company were to say they thought that patents did not promote progress in the software industry. Which is why I think that IBM should be given the squeeze.
The free software community should make their concern on the matter clear to the decision makers within IBM. We do not need your trendy advertising campaigns. We do not need your journaling file system, we already have those. We do not even need your expensive Linux labs. What we want is the freedom to code.
IBM and any other company that would like to curry favour with free software developers should have one thing made clear: your cannot, in good conscience, support both free software and software patents.