Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Revises Patent Royalty Policy

Posted by michael on from the doing-the-right-thing dept.

Jeff Heaton writes: "Looks like W3C is backing down on allowing companies to charge royalties for technologies that are incorporated into a W3C standard. In a controversial proposal made public last fall, the consortium debated whether to allow companies to charge royalty fees if their technologies are used in a standard." The new draft is online.

5 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Excuse for companies? by Enzondio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could this possibly be used by companies as an excuse NOT to incorporate their technology in W3C standards? Whatever their motivation not to do so might be.

    1. Re:Excuse for companies? by Ducon+Lajoie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It could be an excuse indeed for some companies to avoid using W3C as a standard defining organisation and try to go to different forums that offer seemingly better financial incentives.

      The question now for the W3C (and any other SDO for that matters) is: what do they want their standards/recommendations to be?

      Do they target wide adoption and compliance? Do they care about the development of the medium? Do they want to allow the possibility of occasionaly creating de facto monopolies and cash cows for people who manage to tie their intellectual property rights to some standard? Do they have enough confidence in the strengh and credibility of their organization to take a strong stance regarding IPR issues?

      It's not an easy decision for the W3C, it is even harder for SDOs like the ISO, the ITU or others that rely on their members contribution (for standard development and financial contributions).

      As a side note, the whole issue of patents on software is far from settled in many jurisdictions. W3C standards have an international appeal and there is a huge liability issue regarding the non enforceability of such patents on a worldwide basic. This issue can't be looked at with an american law background only.

  2. So true by .sig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But the sad thing is that this really is news. How often does public outcry actually get something changed? (Other than that who Star Wars/nSync fiasco)

    And just when I though complaining about something wouldn't do any good...
    [END HUMOR]

    --
    -Space for rent
  3. Huh??? by IPFreely · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... whether to allow companies to charge royalty fees if their technologies are used in a standard

    The consortium cannot tell a company whether it can charge fees for its technology. I think what they meant was that the Consortium will not accept a technology as a standard if there are fees involved. That's a bit different.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  4. Re:Good by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There's nothing wrong with making money. But since the World-Wide Web is about universal access and platform independence, if your business model involves controlling who may use a technology and how, it has no business being recommended by W3C.