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."
Of course, the good question is... Will this be a case where Apple and HP drop support publically and the issue dissapears (And then quietly reappears 6 months later in a different form) or the case where Apple and HP drop support publically and it just goes on as if nothing happened (Like Adobe's dropping support of suing for Acrobat-Crackers);)
Its all about who the customers are...
by
Whyte+Wolf
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The backlash we saw here on/. and elsewhere against the RAND recommendation fromt he W3C, and the subsequent response from HP and Apple says something quite significant--I think-- about who the real customers of web technology are.
Apple and HPs move are PR motivated, and it looks like they were motivated by the response from their 'real' web cutomers -- the web developers and web designers who work with HTML and W3C 'standards' every day.
I find it interesting to note that Microsoft has yet to say anything about the backlash or its current position. Like always I suspect they hold their customers, and developers in nothing less than utter contempt.
--
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
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.
Re:Definately a Surprise
by
firewort
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Carly must have realized that you can't make profits when paying fees to use everyone else's patents!
I'm pleased that Apple chose this route as a customer, and dissapointed that IBM hasn't, as an employee. Not surprised, just disappointed.
Some major companies have enough trouble conforming to free web standards as it is and break and make their own standards. Creating standards that require royalties to use will just make companies do things their own way even more.
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)?
So.... Apple's main OS du jour has an OSS core, HP and Apple openly combat Free Software's foes, and IBM (despite helping pen the recent W3 recommendation) dances around waving our flag like a teenybopper at a cheerleading competition.
Is anyone else feeling a certain sense of vertigo, here?:) I mean, this is *Apple* we're talking about. Christ, remember the boycott? And IB-smegging-M. Have I stumbled into +Better Than Life or something? This reality's state has surely become inconsistent. I expect the whole thing to segfault at any moment.
-- - undoware.ca
Re:Good for them
by
dinotrac
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Sometimes they do, but I doubt that's the case here, not that it matters.
I have no doubt that a careful re-examination of the issue should have made them realize that each has more to lose than to gain with RAND standards.
First, it's impossible to devise a non-discriminatory standard that imposes a royalty fee. The receiver of the royalties always has the advantage.
Second, such a system, by favoring the biggest players (as they are the ones likely to finagle the largest number of such standards), it would favor the status quo. Not so bad if you're Microsoft or IBM or even Sun. Less wonderful if you're HP or Apple.
Re:Well, what a nice surprise.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It could also be that elements within the companies that "get it" weren't aware of this until the controversy arose, and managed to change the minds of the greedy bastards responsible. Corporations aren't just one big hive kind, you know.
More info/links
by
hansk
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There has been some good discussion and links related to this issue over at Dave Winer's scripting.com.
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!
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.
Response from HP
by
dpol
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There's an interesting interview at NEWS.COM with Jim Bell, director of standards and industry initiatives at Hewlett-Packard, titled "Why the W3C needs to be royalty free".
-- --
David Polberger
Computer Science major, University of Lund, Sweden
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the good question is... Will this be a case where Apple and HP drop support publically and the issue dissapears (And then quietly reappears 6 months later in a different form) or the case where Apple and HP drop support publically and it just goes on as if nothing happened (Like Adobe's dropping support of suing for Acrobat-Crackers) ;)
Gentoo Sucks
The backlash we saw here on /. and elsewhere against the RAND recommendation fromt he W3C, and the subsequent response from HP and Apple says something quite significant--I think-- about who the real customers of web technology are.
Apple and HPs move are PR motivated, and it looks like they were motivated by the response from their 'real' web cutomers -- the web developers and web designers who work with HTML and W3C 'standards' every day.
I find it interesting to note that Microsoft has yet to say anything about the backlash or its current position. Like always I suspect they hold their customers, and developers in nothing less than utter contempt.
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
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.
Some major companies have enough trouble conforming to free web standards as it is and break and make their own standards. Creating standards that require royalties to use will just make companies do things their own way even more.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
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)?
So.... Apple's main OS du jour has an OSS core, HP and Apple openly combat Free Software's foes, and IBM (despite helping pen the recent W3 recommendation) dances around waving our flag like a teenybopper at a cheerleading competition.
:) I mean, this is *Apple* we're talking about. Christ, remember the boycott? And IB-smegging-M. Have I stumbled into +Better Than Life or something? This reality's state has surely become inconsistent. I expect the whole thing to segfault at any moment.
Is anyone else feeling a certain sense of vertigo, here?
- undoware.ca
Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Sometimes they do, but I doubt that's the case here, not that it matters.
I have no doubt that a careful re-examination of the issue should have made them realize that each has more to lose than to gain with RAND standards.
First, it's impossible to devise a non-discriminatory standard that imposes a royalty fee. The receiver of the royalties always has the advantage.
Second, such a system, by favoring the biggest players (as they are the ones likely to finagle the largest number of such standards), it would favor the status quo. Not so bad if you're Microsoft or IBM or even Sun. Less wonderful if you're HP or Apple.
It could also be that elements within the companies that "get it" weren't aware of this until the controversy arose, and managed to change the minds of the greedy bastards responsible. Corporations aren't just one big hive kind, you know.
There has been some good discussion and links related to this issue over at Dave Winer's scripting.com.
Also, over at Zeldman's www.zeldman.com.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
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!
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.
There's an interesting interview at NEWS.COM with Jim Bell, director of standards and industry initiatives at Hewlett-Packard, titled "Why the W3C needs to be royalty free".
-- David Polberger Computer Science major, University of Lund, Sweden