Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Ponders RAND Again

Posted by Hemos on from the hurm-what-to-do-with-this dept.

simonstl writes "Three unnamed W3C participants have suggested a new RAND policy that would let the W3C into the business of charging royalties for patent-encumbered specs. No consensus yet, but they sure seem to keep trying."

5 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. W3C shows its true face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Internet protocols should be free to use - is that so difficult to understand? There would be NO INTERNET without the foundation of free protocols already in place. Evict those 3 members suggesting RAND from the W3C board.

  2. Who made these guys king? by colmore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now I am fully of the happily coexist school of free vs. commercial software, but it strikes me as a little fishy that the organization responsible for setting the standards that everyone supposedly has to follow on the web will also stand to make a profit off of those standards. Doesn't exactly make for unbiased decision making.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  3. too big for boots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is no reason for them to believe they are immune from being replaced, or simply ignored. The most important issue at hand for the WC3 is that many people have had time to digest their response to the first RAND. The reply this time might be more in the field of action rather than words. Their final decision could be one that they would regret.

  4. Found this in the reply to the message linked by Digital+Mage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From: dank@kegel.com
    If I understand correctly, the W3C's position on RAND as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-2002022 6/#sec-Exception which says "In the event a patent has been disclosed that may be essential, but is not available on RF terms, then a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) will be launched to resolve the conflict." implies that RAND will be used only when a patent is truly essential. But the proposal you mentioned above talks about extensions. By definition, an extension is not essential. Therefore the W3C's existing public statements don't support the kind of exception proposal you mentioned.

    You are aware you're treading on very dangerous ground here, I'm sure. Care to identify the three participants who are eager to introduce extensions that require royalty payments? - Dan

    I need to buy this guy a beer and a pizza because he replies to the heart of the matter. What part of NO did a few members not understand from the last time they tried going this way. Well, let me reiterate, NO, NO, NO. I'd love to join W3C and kick some ass over there but unfortunately I don't have the $5,750 to cover their 'affiliate' membership fee. Bastards!

  5. RAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm directly involved in one of the W3C standard efforts - VoiceXML - where RAND is in demand by some of the larger participants. The RAND issue is driven by two things:

    1. Failing business at larger corporations. Companies like Motorola and Lucent are falling quickly, and they are looking to patent & license the technologies behind standards in a desperate attempt to increase revenue.

    2. Microsoft. From the inside, it's obvious that Microsofts anti-open-source strategy is to "RAND"ify as many standards as they can. Privately, I can tell you that many of Microsofts RAND agreements require *$0.00* in payment, but are written in such a way that they prevent open source implementations.