W3C Publishes "Current Patent Practices"

jdaly writes "Given the interest Slashdot readers have shown in W3C's Patent Policy, I would like to provide an update and pointer to the most recent document published by W3C on Patent Issues. The W3C has published Current Patent Practice as a W3C Note. Reviewed by the W3C Advisory Board, the Note represents the current state of W3C patent practice as implemented by the Team for W3C Recommendations. "

From the document: This current practice has evolved in order to satisfy the goal held by a number of W3C Members and significant parts of the larger Web community: that W3C Recommendations should be, as far as possible, implementable on a Royalty-Free basis [AC]. The current practice described here seeks to

• establish Royalty-Free implementation as a goal for Recommendations produced by new and re-chartered Working Groups;
• encourage maximum disclosure of patents that might prevent a W3C Recommendation from being implemented on a Royalty-Free basis;
• provide a process for addressing situations in which the goal of Royalty-Free implementation may not be attainable.

It serves as a guide for W3C Activities between now and when the policy developed by the Patent Policy Working Group is finalized. The policy is currently a Working Draft. Comments are welcome on the _publicly_ archived mailing list www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org.

Comments

Cop-out time

[Arimus]

Looks like (at first glance) that the W3C have taken a cop-out route... "yes we'll keep things royalty free (but only if we can't find a good reason to make them royalty charged)".

Why can't they take a stance and say that without exception patents registered by the w3c will become public domain property (by filling the patent it prevents any other group trying the same thing without the public interest)

Re:Cop-out time

[Anonymous Coward]

A third possibility is closer to Linus' trademark idea, i.e. he owns the trademark, but will only legally enforce that fact if he disagrees with someone's {ab}use of it

You mean like if some hardware company named themselves "Something Linux", and then conspired with their corrupt investment bankers to pull an IPO scam on uneducated investors? Or was Linus paid for that one.

Re:Cop-out time

[Zeinfeld]

Looks like (at first glance) that the W3C have taken a cop-out route... "yes we'll keep things royalty free (but only if we can't find a good reason to make them royalty charged)".

That is not the position at all. You are talking typical Slashweenie nonsense driven by some innane paranoia.

The policy says the exact opposite of your claim. The presumption will be in favor of royalty free.

Why can't they take a stance and say that without exception patents registered by the w3c will become public domain property (by filling the patent it prevents any other group trying the same thing without the public interest)

The policy is not about patents filled by W3C, it is about patents filled by others, some of whom may be members, others who may not.

There are very few W3C members who actually want RAND terms, in fact I can only think of one that has advocated collecting royalties and that is IBM. There are quite a few W3C members who work in areas that are heavily patent encumbered, in many cases due to the negligence of the USPTO there are multiple overlaping patent claims.

What most companies in those encumbered areas do is to file lots of defensive patent collateral for trading purposes. In most cases everyone holding the patents realise that ultimately the probability they are enforceable is quite slim but they can't disarm unless everyone else does. A quite reasonable objective of the W3C patent policy is to encourage negotiation of patent pacts so that a royalty free license is available to anyone who is willing to reciprocate.

Incidentaly, the reason I apply for patents on technology that we intend to make royalty free is to block attempts by others to do so. Whenever I publish a specification some snot comes out of the woodwork and runs off to the USPTO with a perjured patent application claiming it was their idea. Then they try to sell my idea back to me. I am getting so fed up with this that we are actually thinking of bringing a civil perjury suit against the next perpetrator.

The theory of patent law is to encourage use of new ideas. In fact the effect is now the reverse. I spend a lot of time looking at old mailing lists etc. for OLD ideas that might be tweaked to answer a current need.

You're damn' right !

[mirko]

Your post has to be modded down as a troll.

Now, the problem is that you can't claim to be of public utility if you create proprietary stuff from which you'll get money by preventing public organisations not only to use them but also to learn and teach pothers to use them.

IMHO only public international organization should be involved in such researches and thus *not* make a life out of it.

We're not dealing with some home luxury device here but with a communication standard and if such standard accessibility is hindered by a royalty-hog patent, then it should no more be considered as a communication standard.

Now, you can see the obvious problem with patents when handled by multinational profit-seeking entities if you consider these bio-piracy exemples from the real world.

Punishment for violation?

[baby_head_rush]

There are a lot of guidelines, but I don't see anything about how they will enforce them.
Will the member company be removed from the committee or fined?

Re:What are the key points in terms of licensing?

[HiThere]

Given the large number of huge legal documents that one is presented with, a reluctance to read them is simple self-defense.

OTOH, so is a refusal to agree to them without reading them.

Consider, say it takes a lawyer a week to write up some particular document. How long is it going to take you to understand it? But the lawyer is asking hundreds or thousands of people to read and accept this document, and there are hundreds or thousands of lawyers.

This is one of the reasons that I am so in favor of the GPL. It simplifies the licenses that I need to understand.
.

Simple solution for $$ vs. OSource or Free SW

[Olinator]

Here's a simple solution for the contentious $$ aspect -- require that royalties assessed under a RAND license must be expressed as a percentage of the sale price of the item using the licensed tech.

While this doesn't prevent problems with license restrictions -- that would have to be dealt with separately -- it DOES mean that free software alternatives would be relatively unburdened.

Of course, RMS and co. wouldn't be happy, and I'd be inclined to agree with them -- this is a compromise, and compromising is the art of leaving everyone unhappy, but less unhappy than they would be if someone else at the table got everything their way.