W3C Seeks Feedback on VoiceXML

Janet Daly of W3C sent along a note about the VoiceXML 2.0 draft specification. As you may recall, VoiceXML is useful to make your web server speak. Daly points out that as things stand, many members have declared that they have patents related to the standard and would require royalty payments. Like the other W3C/patent issues we've posted about recently, they're seeking public feedback.

jdaly writes: "Today, W3C announced that VoiceXML 2.0 has been issued as a first public Working Draft. Press materials went across various wire services. Rather than send simply a press release here, W3C would like to give more specific information of interest to Slashdot readers. Of note is a section from the "Status of the document" section of VoiceXML 2.0 draft:

"This document seeks Member and public comment on both the technical design and the patent licensing issues arising out of the disclosure and licensing statements that have been made. Our decision to publish this first public working draft has been made to secure early comments from the community, but does not imply that all questions of patent licensing have been resolved or clarified. They must be resolved or work on this document in W3C will stop.

As things stand at the time of publication of this specification, implementations conforming to this specification may require royalty bearing licenses for essential IPR. Further information can be found in the patent disclosures page. The patent policy for W3C as a whole is under wide discussion. A set of commitments by all participants in the Voice Browser Activity to royalty free is a possibility for the future but has NOT been made at time of publication."

As IPR issues are important to Slashdot readers, we are striving to make this information available to them as soon as possible. W3C strongly encourages those with an interest in this specification to consider using the comment list, www-voice@w3.org, which is archived. There is no deadline for comments on a first public Working Draft.

Regards, Janet Daly, W3C"

Comments

With patents, W3C doesn't need to approve

[pdqlamb]

As tightly bound up in patents as voice/sound is, unless W3C takes a truly RAND stance (free, no less), they may as well get out of the way. You may be looking at "non-discriminatory" license fees of $10,000 from half a dozen big companies. That's $10,000 EACH. (Or maybe more, depending on how greedy they are.)

Each of these will negotiate a licensing agreement with the others, for free. But they won't discriminate against anybody else, oh, no!

So why does W3C want to get their hands dirty? Let the big boys go off and negotiate it themselves; that's what they're doing now. This patent-encumbered "standard" will be rather like X was in its early days. And it will fall apart, just like X did when XFree86 started doing the real work, maintenance, and innovation.

If there is a real RAND, free to anyone using the standard (as written, no Microsoft extensions), then the standard has a chance. That's what W3C should drive home before they promulgate a bunch of "open" (aka proprietary) standards.