Slashdot Mirror
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.
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)
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
It is a foundation of open standards which have allowed for innovations like streaming media over the Internet. It is open standards which allow for rapid development of these services. What? You think it'll be better if companies X, Y and Z get 50 patents over one technology and then allow them to fight it out in court so we can have feature A in our web browsers? Or, after they've finished bickering, that it is ok for a corporate created browser to claim compliance because they can afford the licensing fees but a browser like Mnemonic can't because it's created by a bunch of hackers?
Patents are not needed or wanted for a standard like the one drafted by the W3C. Ever. If a company wants a product to become a standard for the WWW then they need to be willing to give up control of that "intellectual property." Otherwise, take your chance in the market and get eaten by MS (you know this just had to be included. it is /. :) like every other smoe out there.
Patents do have uses and I am all for them but not in software. As long as there is copyright and trade secrets available it's an axiom I won't accept.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
There is a lot that is wrong with software patents, not with patents in general.
The problem is that everyone can make a small contribution, and when you write software, your standing on other developers toes, not their shoulders.
There are only a few things that are big enough to be patented. For example, the Web. But the web wouldn't have existed if it had been patented. TimBL has made this very clear, over and over. And TimBL has also made it very clear that you're wrong: It's the common standards that encourage growth, because it makes it possible for everybody to compete on a level playing field.
Software patents had been OK if they costed no more than $100 to get (so that everybody could get them), took a week to get granted, and expired after a month.
That's what it takes for software patents to hinder continued development. However, this is completely unrealistic, so better drop them.
OTOH, I'd like you to come up with good examples of software patents that encouraged growth. And we'll see how important they were compared to e.g. the Internet and the Web.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
If a "standard" turns out to be encumbered with a patent, and the owner can't be convinced to allow it's use gratis as needed for standard conformance, then the standard should be revoked.
...).
Sorry, but I don't see any way around this. A standard is a way of doing things that everybody is supposed to use to accomplish some purpose. A limitation on usage is an automatic effective limitation of the "standard". I.e., it becomes non-standard (some people are unable to use that approach). So the spec should be stricken from the list of standards.
If only some people are allowed to do something, then is just isn't a standard way of doing it. And to the extent that they even hedge on this the W3C should be ashamed of themselves. If they go against this, then the need to be replaced. It may be difficult, but they have violated the turst placed in them.
This isn't the first time that they (or one of their committees) have taken this stand. They can't be trusted. They need to be replaced.
This is not to deny that they have in the past done some good work, and that they may still do some good work. But we can't take their word as to what a standard usage is, because they have proven themselves unreliable.
This is what one should expect of them. Up until this year, or very late last year, every member was the representative of a large company, so it was to be expected that they would act for the benefit of those companies. The two Open Source members that they have added are going to be in the minority whenever a vote is taken. Company values will dominate this group. We can't expect otherwise given their structure and organization. But we can decide that they are not an acceptable authority for us to decide standard usage on.
This is made more complex because most of their past decisions were acutal standards, and much of the web and the net has been formalized based on those standards. But this doesn't act to mitigate their recent decisions. They can not be trusted. So some parallel group is needed that can act to specify acceptable standards. Even though most of what they would do originally would be to rubber stamp the pre-existing W3C standards (this one is unencumbered, that one is unencumbered,
It has been said by members of the W3C that a fork would be extremely bad. Well they are the ones who have created the fork by chaning their definiton process. A fork in the standards is less bad than accepting pseudo-standards as if they were the real thing.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Patented standards are unuseable as standards. I don't like this, but I can't come to any other conclusion. And something masquerading as a standards body push these un-standards is possibly more harmful even than not having ANY standards body. At least there is the pre-existing basis of standards to build on.
If you doubt this, just consider the problems that the ogg-vorbis people are having because of so many patents in that area. The existence of patents renders an area unuseful for standards. Calling a government granted monopoly a standard degrades the language, and the meanings of the terms beyond usefulness. That a monopoly, not a standard. It's only a standard if it can be adopted as the standard approach.
Companies that attempt to sneak their patented approaches into the standards should be immediately removed from all participation in the process. They are deadly to it. This isn't even punishment, this is merely self protection. A standard needs to be able to be used. Otherwise it only confuses things, and pollutes the data-space.
Move the whole process to Europe? It could be in Europe for all I know. The location doesn't really matter. But it you care about this at all, campaign to keep Europe from recognizing the validity of software patents.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.