W3C Poised To Release New Patent Policy

egoff writes "According to ComputerWorld, the Patent Policy Working Group at the W3C is ready to release a new proposal for dealing with technology patents that get in the way of creating web standards. While making no comment, the W3C was seeking public input for its Royalty Free Patent Policy until April 30th."

Comments

If I don't like their new patent policy

[Anonymous Coward]

I plan to patent it and stop them from using it!

Re:If I don't like their new patent policy

[Demanche]

well.... In soviet russia.. the patents patents patent *you*

Hey...

[craenor]

I thought Bezos already had this patent...

Re:Hey...

[Anonymous Coward]

And in WinXP pro you can set the memory usage of a dos executable to "higher" by doubleclicking it

Pre-emptive Strike

[Geekenstein]

Its a good move to hold patents like this, if for no other reason than quick resolution to silly patents granted by the USPTO. But that's pretty much stating the obvious, eh?

Re:Pre-emptive Strike

[SquarePants]

Hold patemts like what? RTFA! I can't believe comments like this get modded up.

Re:Pre-emptive Strike

[I don't want to spen]

I thought that one of the requirements for granting patents was a demonstration of no prior art. So maybe another approach would be to have a central location (maybe on a patent office website) for people to register their ideas that they wanted to share but not be patented. This would timestamp the idea but also allow private companies to go ahead as normal with patents and making money without trying to do it by stealing other people's ideas! And incidentally give the patent office(s) somewhere to search for prior art.

There's a time and a place for everything. Its called the Universe.

Re:Pre-emptive Strike

[ahknight]

Welcome to Slashdot, please, enjoy your stay.

Re:Pre-emptive Strike

[SquarePants]

There is such a place. The United States Patent and Trademark Office. The filing is called a Statutory Invention Registration ("SIR")

Re:Pre-emptive Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a drawback to databases of well-publicized prior art. When courts rule on the validity of patents, they tend to disregard any prior art the examiner already reviewed while granting the patent. If examiners were rewarded for doing their jobs competently, this wouldn't be much of a problem, but they are emphatically not. In our current situation it's much more effective to let prior art remain relatively obscure until it's needed to invalidate a patent (assuming you can find anyone who can afford to take it into court) so it'll actually be reviewed fairly.

Rationale for new patent policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The radical growth of the Internet has been achieved largely because of the freedom of its developers to use the tools they felt necessary to implement the services that have become standards. While it is true that Free Software to a large part has been helpful to the process, I feel that forcing developers to avoid technologies that are patent-encumbered will promote the Free Software agenda at the expense of freedom: freedom to create the very technologies that allowed Free Software to thrive in the first place!

Isn't this an example of putting the cart before the horse? Free Software is great and all, but true freedom comes from not handing control of everything to one faction... something I would think would be obvious to other supporters of open source software. A monopoly over the Internet is just as bad in the hands of OSS developers as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[shaitand]

ok, what about the concept of open and free do you not get? Nothing should be standardized and patent encumbered if it's to become standard.. web standards should be like air, they should be free for all... wait, they sell air in cans now. nm, we've already sold out as a society, carry on then.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[molarmass192]

The W3C is a standards body. The patent-free policy is to allow OSS/free software to even EXIST. Even the slightest patent royalty immediately kills the possibility of (legal) free software. In a patent free ecosystem, for-profit and not-for-profit software compete on equal footing. Allow even one patent with royalty fees, even as low as $0.01 a unit, and that ecosystem is gone, free software cannot exist by definition, much less compete. As for your monopoly argument, you are blurring patents with software. A patent (in this case) is a concept or methodology. There is no grant of monopoly to OSS. A monopoly grant would be that all software that abides by W3C standards MUST be open sourced. There is no such implication here, in fact OSS is not even mentioned anywhere in the clause. Please tell me that this is a troll?

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[Anonymous Coward]

How does "no patents in standards" get turned into "monopoly .. in the hands of OSS developers"? Microsoft is allowed to implement standards too, ya know.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's forcing you to use W3C standards, if you want to use patent encrusted technology, that's your choice. You can go ahead and design all your webpages in patented technology monopolized by one company. The W3C won't stop you. I don't see how you think choice has been thrown out the door, unless you are one of Bill Gate's minions.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[Anonymous Coward]

FFII is a kind of umbrella organisation of our joint effort to stop Arlene McCarthy.

http://swpat.ffii.org

FFII is probably stronger than you would expect.

But the main problem is money. FFII and all other organisations cannot afford a permanent lobby spokesman in Brussels.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow even one patent with royalty fees, even as low as $0.01 a unit, and that ecosystem is gone, free software cannot exist by definition

If "free" is "as in beer", and free-beer authors are unable to come up with an equivalent non-infringing bit of technology and all completely law-abiding, then of course the statement is trivially true. In any other case, the claim is not true.

If "free" is "libre", then the statement is not even close to true. Users of the open-source, freely-available code would have to pay a royalty to legally use the code. People like to insist that "you can still make money" with free software, by selling services and support. Collecting patent royalties could be one such service.

Implementors of applications are highly likely to modularize their code so that the royalty-encumbered parts are easily separable from the rest of the app. Consider GIMP and how it handles GIF LZW compression, for example. It's even modular at installation time, not just compile time. There's a real-world counter-example that disproves the claim already.

And, of course, once there's a royalty system, there is a degree of motivation to create implementations for those encumbered modules to replace them for free-as-in-beer.

Of course, if the patented process really is both all that irreplaceable and valuable so that the scenario you fear is true, then there's nothing wrong with the inventors collecting their money, now is there?

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[Anonymous Coward]

The radical growth of the World has been achieved largely because of the freedom of its members to use the politic system they felt necessary to implement the governements that have become standards. While it is true that Democracy to a large part has been helpful to the process, I feel that forcing countries to avoid politic systems that are "absolute control" encumbered will promote the Democracy agenda at the expense of freedom: freedom to create the very society that allowed Democracy to thrive in the first place!

Isn't this an example of putting the cart before the horse? Democracy is great and all, but true freedom comes from not handing control of everything to one faction... something I would think would be obvious to other supporters of open politic system. A monopoly over the World is just as bad in the hands of Democrates as it would be in the hands of Sadam Hussein.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[kogs]

The situation with GSM is that the main player cross-licence each other which reduces the net licence fees per handset/base station/etc. If you are not already in there with a stack of patents, the licences required present a significant barrier to entry into the market.

The nature of a mobile phone system means that effective implementation involves careful hardware design as much as software design. Consequently, you do not generally find people knocking up GSM handsets as a hobby. Also, as transmitting apparatus, government type approval would required and would cost both arms and both legs.

The web on the other hand, can be fully implemented, not necessarily optimally, using commodity hardware. Consequently, the hobbyist or small business person can imnplement any protocol with an investment of primarily time rather than cash. Thus, the implementation of web technologies and GSM are economically distinct.

Put another way, GSM has these characteristics:

1. high cost of hardware development
2. patent cross-licences provide relatively cheap, in royalty terms, access to market for companies leading development (compensation for doing the development)
3. patent licences provide high cost of entry to the market for companies not leading development.

The Web at present has the following characteristics:

1. low hardware costs (remember we are talking about the Web not the Internet as a whole)
2. absence of need for non-free patent licences encourages entry into market, leading to expansion of market for client and server software to the potential benefit of all
3. copyright provides protection against actual copying of the software as opposed to the protocols that the software uses to communicate
4. the presence of patents could be used to enforce standards compliance, i.e. licence only free/available where standard is implemented correctly

These differences do not dictate the policy that W3C should follow. However, for the commercial players, the issue is whether their propects are better with unrestricted competition in an expanding market or restricted competition in a more limited market. For W3C, presumably, this issue is a mixture of what would provide the most effective web and some philosophical goals.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[jmv]

A monopoly over the Internet is just as bad in the hands of OSS developers as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.

Where do you get the idea that no patent meant an OSS monopoly? Currently, there's not patent in HTML. Does that mean that there's no probrietary browser. On the other hand, just imagine if MS (or any other) had a key patent in HTML. Yes, *that* would be a catastropy, not only for OSS but for many other companies.

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[Solosoft]

Yeah , but can you sue opensource ... in all definintion no one "Owns" Opensource ...

Re:Rationale for new patent policy

[harriet nyborg]

kogs, yes there are essential differences in GSM and the web, but at the end of the day the question is, what is the best way to provide services to users? this is always the basic economic question.

despite the differences between the economic models for GSM and the Web, i pay more or less the same price today for GSM service as i do for my Web access (using ADSL) - about 35 evros a month. since both are of equal value to me, from a consumer's perspective, this is reasonable.

all i am saying is that there is more than one way to get from point A to point B and the W3C's (recently adopted) patent policy is by no means the only way. i personally believe the W3C's chosen path is the wrong one which will only benefit the giants.

most slashdotters seem to view patents as a big-company squashing the small-company.

cross-licensing is a matter of trading equal value for equal value. big companies with lots of patents AND a large market share trade with other big companies with lots of patents and large market shares. a university, a small company, or even an individual with even one patent and no market share does not have to trade away their patents in a cross-license.

with RAND small companies actually have a hope to be able to profit from their innovations.

but as a result of the W3C's patent policy the giants can use the results of the hard work and innovation of small companies, universities, and individuals without having to compensate them.

HP and IBM are hardly anti-patent, but they support the W3C RF patent policy... ostensibly because they concluded that with RAND they would have to pay more than they would receive.

under RAND, IBM, HP, Oracle, and all the other giants would very likely have to pay royalties to small companies who have no interest, or need, for a cross-license.

the W3C RF policy is a sellout of precisely the people whom W3C claims to support - the small developer.

nor does the W3C RF policy provide any of these small companies protection against the thousands of other patents which IBM, HP, and the other giants hold.

patents are the only defense small companies have against the giants, yet by telling david that all slings are bad, the W3C convinced them to agree to lay down their weapons. to be fair, the W3C also forces the goliaths to lay down their weapons, but the goliaths still have their fists.

it is also a fallacy that one can declare one's self a patent free zone. most governments do not allow so much personal soverignty. patents owned by non-W3C members are not subject to the RF policy.

the result of the W3C policy will be less competitition, higher end-user prices, and none of the benefits which were used to sell the policy.

marx said that communism was not about reforming private property, its goal was abolishing private property. the W3C is using the same "logic" and will probably produce the same results - a few get rich and powerful and the average person gets screwed and exploited.

Um, April 30th was 3 weeks ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the old news

Finally

[daevux]

It's about time!

April 30?

[numbski]

Good to know they gave us so much time to comment...

Negative numbers or division by 0 and core dump? :)

Not what we need.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need a new proposal for dealing with patents, we need to abandon patents altogether.

Re:Not what we need.

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

Mod parent insightful.
Patents have been shown time and time again as a source of significant litigational abuse and also as a barrier to entry for many innovations. They have been stolen from small investors, and big corporations feel free to abuse patents they don't own, and then counter-sue in court and bury the little guys in paper. Not telling others how your process works is the only way to keep things safe for a little while, patents don't help the little guys, they only help the capital rich bohemoths...

If you can't compete with clones, it's because you have a bad business model, or bad business practices. When's the last time you heard of Denny's(a cheap restaurant) suing Carrows(Another of the same) over selling an item that was too similar, or over making the order process too similar? You haven't, because they can compete with the same products and processes just fine. (Both companies are doing well, AFAIK).

Patents and punitive litigation are both seemingly good ideas that have been more than abused, at least where I live(USA).

Re:Not what we need.

[ciaran_o_riordan]

It would be almost impossible to get rid of patents.

Most developed countries have signed the TRIPs agreement, article 33 of which states that patents must be availble for inventions and must last a minimum of 20 years.

Reduced term patents (3 or 5 years) will not happen due to this World Trade Organisation agreement.

More realisticly, we can try to prevent the adoption of software patents in europe, thus preventing them from being a completely global "commodiy".

We can also ask for reform of the patent review system. No country is going to revoke current patents but it could be possible to prevent such frivolous patents in the future.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Europeans, get your act together

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Europeans: the EU patents vote will be held on June 18th.

Don't wait for you opinion to be asked, it won't be.
Don't wait for the open debate, there isn't any.
Don't waif for someone else to do it. *Very* few people are doing anything.

The deal:
There are 626 MEPs that are going to vote on *your* rights, most of them will have never heard the bad effects of Software Patents. They have been asked to "unify", "harmonise" and "remove legal grey areas" from the European Patent Convention (EPC, article 52). Unless educated, they are going to say "yes" to patents. (M$ have patented their video format in the US, we are never allowed to write a player for their format. Promoting progress?)

Germany has 99 MEPs
GB, France, and Italy have 87 MEPs each.
Ireland has 15
(I can't remember the other countries of the top of my head)

Get informed, read the (lengthy) docs at ffii.org and contact your MEPs.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:Europeans, get your act together

[shaitand]

French, we all know your government is pissed at the united states over iraq, use it, point out the American government is trying to force it's corporate domination on other countries like it has it's own people! (hell if they buy it, I'll move to france ;) )

Re:Europeans, get your act together

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they care for their freedom, not like US citizens, who only care for their money.

Re:Europeans, get your act together

[shaitand]

You seem confused. First I didn't attack the french, I gave advice. Second, in the US money = freedom. The more money you have, the more free, you see here you can buy politicians to insure that YOUR freedoms are protected more than anybody elses ;)

comment period

[Alien54]

it was once of those secret comment periods that was made known only to insiders, and to people with lots of money.

Me Cynical? not a chance.

feh

That way there was no chance of not getting the result they were paid to get.

Then stop feeding the W3C

[Anonymous Coward]

What matters is whether a technology is patent-free or not. If the W3C is unwilling to promote what matters, then instead of asking whether a standard is "W3C approved" or not, people will ask if it is "patent-free" and no one will care for the W3C.

By definition...

[WCMI92]

An industry "standard" can't BE a standard unless anyone in the industry can use it.

Of course, that is contrary to the trend, which is to closed "standards" even blessed by the Feds. For instance: IBOC digital AM/FM radio, adopted by the FCC, and something ALL stations will have to eventually install... It's owned by ONE company, iBiquity, and stations have to pay ROYALTIES to use it.

Re:By definition...

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Patents last 21 years in most countries. A company can hold a patent and stay silent until it becomes popular one good example being the LZW compression and the GIF format.

another example being the JPEG extension that was patented quietly for the last 10 years and then invoked against one of the large digital camera manufacturers (Fujitso?). The patent holder, having done zero development of the research, netted $30 million from the infringement case.

Also, a company could license the patent under RAND ("Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory") terms. Such as charging a tiny amount per licensed copy, mabe 4cent.

The company looks like it's being a good member of the software industry but Free Software cannot mandate a fee per license so it effectively gives access all except Free Software. M$ love this style of licensing.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

truer words have sometimes been spoken. But speak loud, wandering soul, speak loud.

They will stop...

[SharpFang]

They will stop people from patenting popups, spam, embedded music in pages, misleading links and all such stuff, and then for charging anyone who uses them for patent violation?! NO WAY!

The trouble with the French

[Anonymous Coward]

is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur.

Re:The trouble with the French

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, they more than made up for it with the French tickler.

open source nerds, get YOUR act together

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it when ever any kind of social activist type of person tries to talk to computer nerds about things like, i dont know, boycotts, politics, etc, the nerds, who in general work for megacorps, blow them off as stupid liberals.

and yet when YOU want YOUR issue to be voted on, you are sitting there scratching your ass why nobody cares about YOUR problems?

get a clue, people, get a motherfucking clue

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

who will meta-moderate the meta-meta-moderators?

Can someone explain...

[DesertFalcon]

using short words and simple language what this means exactly? Is this basically just a move to stop Amazon.com from going nuts?

Anyone get that scary Windows Media player popup?

[simul]

I think it's version 7.1. If you upgrade try to play a ".wma" file that you ripped, it sends you a page that says "your registry has not been updated with the signature of your copied cd". Something like that. They record your IP address and information about the copied file at that time... regardless fo whether you say "OK". Freaked me out.

What's all the DRM crap really for? It's not to catch real hackers, who will strip off DRM info and watermarks like wrapping paper at Christmas.

No, the point is to scare average people into paying for more CD's. Good little hackers use anonymizers while surfing. They download as muich as they wany - and, partially due to lack of unicast filtering standards, are free to wreak havoc online anonymously and safely with their botnets.

Controlling access to the free distribution of information is probably stup in the long run anyway. Simply slow down the memetic and, eventually, genetic evolution of our species.

civil disobedience

[foo fighter]

With open source software do software patents really matter any more?

Take any software patent for example. Sure, it's patented, but some enterprising young college student (anyone for this matter) makes their own implementation of the patent and releases it on the web as Open Source (and/or Free) software anonymously. That implementation turns out to be really rather decent and becomes widespread, perhaps more widespread than the "official" implementation. Improvements and additions are added (anonymously) and the unofficial becomes the unofficial-official.

Are the users of the unofficial implementation liable for patent infringement? I'd say no, but I'm not a lawyer. Is the creator liable? Probably, but who'll ever know?

More pragmatically, would the patent holder go after users of the unofficial implementation? I'd say a more emphatic NO. Maybe if they're a Fortune 500, but in that case who really cares since that realm might as well be on Mars.

Most pragmatically, would most users of that implementation care that it was technically illegal. I'd say a most emphatic no.

People using software are mostly individuals and small to medium sized businesses. Without going through a detailed prisoners-dilemma analysis I'd say the odds are you won't get in trouble using a technically illegal implementation and so you shouldn't worry overmuch that you're small corporation will get sued out of existance. In fact, the potential profits will outweigh such potential risk making it a practical no-brainer.

I see web sites all the time with source that says copyright ..., patent ..., or patent pending..., but who really cares.

I'm going to get modded down by all the people who are of the mindset that copyright and patents are handed down by god for the benefit of the holder to the detriment of the user. But in reality the space for copyright and patent in the digital age is zero, nada, zip, nothing.

I view digital violation of copyrights and patents (especially of software) as the new "natural" order and civil disobedience at its most right. I think most other long-time 'net users do as well and are waiting impatiently for the rest of the world to catch up.

That means whatever policy the W3C comes up with is irrelevant before it goes into print and this whole discussion is moot.

Re:civil disobedience

[rusty0101]

A re-implementation of a pattented process, is infringement of the pattented process. If you implement a new process that creates MP3 files from raw audio files, and you use the same steps as the pattented process, then the new implementation infringes on the pattented process. This is slightly different from copyright in that it does not require that any of the original code be included to be considered infringement.

In order for the re-implementation to become popular, it will have to become available. In the open source world that means that it will have to be put up on a public server of some sort. At the moment, I beleive most (if not all of the most popular) development CVS tree servers require that there be a project maintainer who can be contacted for that project.

If a lawyer for a pattent holder discovers that there is a project using pattented technology on a CVS tree, the maintainer of the CVS tree will most likely be contacted with a cease and desist letter, as will the project leader. If the CVS tree continues to be available, then under the DMCA, as well as a couple of other acts, either, or both would become liable for damages and fines with respect to the pattented process.

Then again, I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one. I didn't read the article, and it doesn't appear that you have either.

-Rusty

Re:civil disobedience

[Simon Brooke]

Take any software patent for example. Sure, it's patented, but some enterprising young college student (anyone for this matter) makes their own implementation of the patent and releases it on the web as Open Source (and/or Free) software anonymously. That implementation turns out to be really rather decent and becomes widespread, perhaps more widespread than the "official" implementation. Improvements and additions are added (anonymously) and the unofficial becomes the unofficial-official.

Are the users of the unofficial implementation liable for patent infringement? I'd say no, but I'm not a lawyer. Is the creator liable? Probably, but who'll ever know?

1. Yes, they are
2. The owner of the technology will know who has bought licences. So, if you're using the technology and you haven't bought a license, you're infringing.

Personally I think software patents are a very bad thing and am lobbying as hard as possible to prevent them being instituted in Europe; but I think the current W3C document is a compromise I can live with.

But you're essentially right that patents and the extension of copyright are the twenty-first century enclosure of the commons, and that civil disobedience is the correct response.

Re:civil disobedience

[Surak]

Take any software patent for example. Sure, it's patented, but some enterprising young college student (anyone for this matter) makes their own implementation of the patent and releases it on the web as Open Source (and/or Free) software anonymously. That implementation turns out to be really rather decent and becomes widespread, perhaps more widespread than the "official" implementation. Improvements and additions are added (anonymously) and the unofficial becomes the unofficial-official.

Your scenario doesn't work, except (maybe) with a BSD license. The problem with Free software licenses like the GPL is that they are hacks of copyright. For the GPL to work someone has to hold the copyright, otherwise there's no license contract. A license agreement is just that -- a contract. And you can't have a contract with someone who's identity is entirely unknown* to you. Hence, any software anonymously GPLed isn't GPLed at all, it's public domain.

So, why not let someone else hold the copyright, like the Free Software Foundation? Then the author isn't liable for patent infringement, the copyright holder is. There is basically very little, if any, legal distinction between the author of a program and the copyright holder.

Example: The GNU Midnight Commander is copyrighted by Free Software Foundation, so Miguel de Icaza basically has no legal right to the copyright title of the software. Miguel, MC's principal author, is in effect, a licensee of the program. As such, he's allowed to modify and redistribute it all he wants, but he can't legally redistribute MC under a different license, he can only redistribute it under the GPL. Only the Free Software Foundation can redistribute it under a different license (and fat chance of that ever happening).

So in your scenario, the Free Software Foundation would be liable.

It *might* work under a BSD license, but you really have the same scenario -- there is no license, because there's no copyright holder, so the software is basically treated as public domain. The only difference here is that there isn't much difference between a BSD license ans software that is really just pure public domain.

You could make it anonymously public domain, but then I don't know who has the liability at that point, because IANAL. Maybe the end-users?

* Okay, you can, sort of. With a software license, the licensor of the license doesn't, per se, have to know who the licensee is, because receipt and use of the software is what identifies the licensee. But going the other way around, you can't enter into a license agreement with a legal entity that basically doesn't exist.

Re:civil disobedience

[no_choice]

I agree with your premise, that people ignoring absurd digital patent and copyright laws is natural and a form of civil disobedience. I think you are being very naive, however, in your assertion that since people are ignoring these (IMO wrong-headed) laws, they aren't really a problem.

Look at the history of digital copyright laws. At first they were widely ignored on the internet, to the great common benefit... it was possible to get music, lyrics, etc. very convientiently and for free. Gradually, as the ownership class* realized they were losing the profits they could reap by creating artificial scarcity, they struck back by buying legislation** and bringing the power of law enforcement*** and media propoganda**** to bear against the new competitors.

The same thing will happen with software patents... first, sneak throught the legislation as "clearing up grey areas", while greasing palms as appropriate... then, since it is "illegal," get tough enforcement laws enacted with criminal pentalies...

After the first enterprising young college student gets 5 years in jail for distributing an illegal computer program, we will see how many other people will wish to be involved in maintaining, distributing or linking to such software.

Anonymity you say? Do you really think they will continue to allow you to be anonymous if that would cost them profits? Think again. A fully locked-down internet, DRM everywhere, with passive consumers absorbing "content" from centralized powers for money is much more convenient for the owners than the chaotic free-for-all of free people expressing, exchanging and sharing as they choose. This is what we are heading for.

Do not underestimate the power of the ownership class, those who hold the patents and the copyrights... they are a tiny percentage of the population, but they control enourmous wealth, media resources, and have tremendous influence on the governments that are supposed to serve the people. They are smart and they are patient. They will work deliberatly, cleverly, insidiously and relentlessly to protect their interests. If that means you losing your freedom, they don't care.

It's not hopeless... if we organize, educate, agitate and fight we have a chance... but civil disobedience alone without being active in the political process as well will get us nothing but marginalized as dangerous "pirates," "theives," or even "terrorists."

To start with, have you given these guys money?
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation

*RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, etc.
**DMCA, etc.
***Jon Johanson, 2600 etc.
****File sharing = "piracy", encryption="terrorism", internet="immorality" etc.

Re:civil disobedience

[Cyno]

Nope.

The fastest way to win is to lose. Let them have their way and reshape the environment how they would choose. While they are doing that organize on our own and create a new environment. The proper environment for people to live in. The proper rule set. Etc. This requires many bright minds and a lot of man-hours. And there's much to draw from. But anyway when the time is right, when everything is almost hopelessly fucked up, then launch a huge propoganda campaign with the right leaders in place ready to take control. Through democracy you can take back everything, but you must frist be prepared to solve ALL OF THE PROBLEMS. And I don't think you're ready for that, just yet.

Re:civil disobedience

[axxackall]

1. If I would publish the code under GPL and then people will improve and enhance it, and then they will fork ii, still under GPL - what can you do about it?

2. Sourceforge doesn't require from me any legal ID: I can host the project under any name I want.

3. Americans still forget that Internet is not a WAN of USA - it's international. If people around the world will publish the implemetation, that is in infringement of US patent, what is a patent holder going to do about it? Send US Army there?

Remember PGP? Well, there was no any infringement of the pattented process, but the way how the code has left USA was certainly a violation of US export rules. And what has US govt done about to prevent, stop or revert it?

I also think that US patent system is obsolete, it doesn't reflect the reality, it doesn't help small and mid business to compete free and it doesn't motivate individual and small-biz inventors to invent. All it does is it pretends that it protects interests of big corps, but in fact it doesn't protect even their interests anymore. It's a bad legacy that must be wiped out.

Re:civil disobedience

[kogs]

1. If I would publish the code under GPL and then people will improve and enhance it, and then they will fork ii, still under GPL - what can you do about it?

Sue you for all the lost sales of my product arising from your distribution of your infringing version. I may not get much but it sure as hell is going to make your life a misery - pour encourager les autres

2. Sourceforge doesn't require from me any legal ID: I can host the project under any name I want.

I'll sue SourceForge instead

3. Americans still forget that Internet is not a WAN of USA - it's international. If people around the world will publish the implemetation, that is in infringement of US patent, what is a patent holder going to do about it? Send US Army there?

Fancy that, I'm a big corporation and I've got a patent in your country too. Alternatively, be very careful about where you go on vacation. IP lawyers use private detectives.

Remember PGP? Well, there was no any infringement of the pattented process, but the way how the code has left USA was certainly a violation of US export rules. And what has US govt done about to prevent, stop or revert it?

I just want you to stop and give me money. The US government wanted to prevent it happening in the first place.

Re:civil disobedience

[axxackall]

Ok then, I'll combine all three together: I'll use those my accounts that doesn't have any of my personal ID *AND* I'll publish the code under GPL on Sourceforge/Savanna-like servers colocated in software-patent-free countries. So now what?

Yes, that's right, I forgot to mention in my previous post: US is the country with the worst patent laws. In many other countries software (code and algorithms) is math and as such it cannot be patented. File and message formats as well as protocols are languages and as such they cannot be patented.

Have you ever thought why Linus Torvalds is hosting the tree on BitKeeper in Australia? He, personally, works in Sillicon Valley. But b/c of the collective nature of the project and often anonymous participation (at least no personal ID is required - so no personal proof) - he can live and work safe in California even if some crazy guys from SCO would publish their company's IP code into the kernel and later SCO will try to sue him personally (it's just an example, no real connection to the recent SCO lawsuit).

Speaking about private detectives - what are they goind to do if I don't have any plans to go to USA? To kill me?

Re:civil disobedience

[Cyberdyne]

Remember PGP? Well, there was no any infringement of the pattented process, but the way how the code has left USA was certainly a violation of US export rules.

Not true. PGP was exported entirely legally, in printed form (crypto legislation would have barred a disk or CD ROM from being exported, but not a printed copy) then scanned and OCRed. Result: an entirely legal copy of PGP outside the US. Once there, it could be freely compiled and distributed.

And what has US govt done about to prevent, stop or revert it?

Since it was entirely legal, nothing. (Yes, there were lots of battles over the crypto laws, but PGP was exported legally.)

I agree software patents can be a major barrier to entry for small companies (Microsoft and IBM both have patents on a great many fundamental things; MS apparently hold a patent on the use of a particular privileged x86 instruction to trigger an OS exception!) - I'm not at all convinced ignoring the law is a good idea, though. Much better to replace the patented algorithm: look at Ogg Vorbis and PNG. Not particularly widely used, but entirely patent-safe. If, for example, Red Hat wanted a Linux iTunes clone, they'd have to use Ogg Vorbis rather than MP3. Individuals may not care (at least until they get sued) but companies certainly should - too easy a target otherwise!

Re:civil disobedience

[Cyberdyne]

Have you ever thought why Linus Torvalds is hosting the tree on BitKeeper in Australia?

It's hosted by BitKeeper - in San Francisco. Nothing to do with Linus, either: it's a BitKeeper-owned server, along with all their others. For that matter, kernel.org (the main "home" of the kernel) is hosted by the ISC, about 15 minutes' drive from San Francisco Airport. Not only are they not outside the US, both servers are in Linus's home state!

He, personally, works in Sillicon Valley. But b/c of the collective nature of the project and often anonymous participation (at least no personal ID is required - so no personal proof) - he can live and work safe in California even if some crazy guys from SCO would publish their company's IP code into the kernel and later SCO will try to sue him personally (it's just an example, no real connection to the recent SCO lawsuit).

It doesn't matter if he hosts a server on Mars, SCO can sue him in California equally easily: it's the person's location which matters, not any server they may use. Which is probably one reason he doesn't host anything in Australia - that, and the high price of bandwidth there. Why would he, and where did you get the idea he did?

Re:civil disobedience

[axxackall]

I agree, sometimes it's easy to move to alternative algorithm. But the problem is that it's not always economically convinient. And once we talk about economy and competition then don't forget: it's a world of mostly capitalism. I mean the whole world, not just USA.

I think that there will be more and more cases when some projects will emmigrate to other countries, where Open Source is more appreciated than in USA, where there is no such lobbiing pressure of Microsoft as in USA. And where software is math, while file/message formats as well as protocols are languages and thus they both cannot be patented.

Look, INS now protects american job market from being infestated by H1B alliens. What's happening? Companies outsource projects offshore. Samething will happen in IP area.

Re:civil disobedience

[kogs]

Ok then, I'll combine all three together: I'll use those my accounts that doesn't have any of my personal ID *AND* I'll publish the code under GPL on Sourceforge/Savanna-like servers colocated in software-patent-free countries. So now what?

Firstly, there is the issue of identifying you. This may or may not be possible. This just a matter of getting evidence rather than legal principle. Someone may even grass you up.

Secondly, you cannot legally relase the code under the GPL, or any other licence, into jurisdiction where a relevant patent is in force.

Thirdly, if someone downloads the software into a jurisdiction where there is a relevant patent, you risk being used as an importer or various other more subtle grounds which vary from country to country.

In some circumstances, you can be sued in one country for infringement of a patent in another.

Yes, that's right, I forgot to mention in my previous post: US is the country with the worst patent laws. In many other countries software (code and algorithms) is math and as such it cannot be patented. File and message formats as well as protocols are languages and as such they cannot be patented.

Your understanding of what is and is not patentable outside the US is a little naive. Software isn't patentable as such. However, if an invention has a technical character, which can include encryption and data compression, the fact that it will be put into practice using software does not prevent it being patented. Another example of a patentable software-implemented invention would be a new CPU scheduling method.

It is not reasonable to simply ban any patent for inventions relating to software because microprocessors are the fundamental buildng block of virtually all modern control systems from DVD players to mobile phones to chemical plants.

Re:The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The meta-meta-meta-moderators, of course.

A patent is a monopoly

[smiff]

Free Software is great and all, but true freedom comes from not handing control of everything to one faction... something I would think would be obvious to other supporters of open source software. A monopoly over the Internet is just as bad in the hands of OSS developers as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.

What part of the word monopoly do you not understand? A patent is a monopoly granted by the government. The whole purpose of an industry standard is that anybody can implement it. The point of a royalty-free patent standard is to insure that no monopoly power is exercised over W3C standards.

If you allow RAND or other non-royalty-free patent policies, then open source software will be shut out of the standard. You may call that freedom. I call your words doublespeak.

Re:A patent is a monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

... and the day the W3C incorporates non-free patents into their standards, they will be superceded by a new organization willing to keep the Internet open to all. On that day, one geek shall step forward to lead the cause of open and free standards so that all may participate in the digital age on equal footing.

I will step forward myself if it is required.

Standards Conformance

[blogeasy]

I only wish that vendors adhered more closely to the standards. I always develop code to the latest standards including XHTML and CSS2, but it always seems that some browser or product does not implement the standard correctly. Nonetheless, promoting standards instead of patents is definately the way to go.

Re:Standards Conformance

[budgenator]

I'm not sure if I agree with you or not but it seems to me that if you hold a patent on a particular technology, then you set the standards for it; inviting a public organ like the w3c to embrase your proposed standard while keeping the fact that you've patented the technology prior to standardization is deceitfull.

I can understand a company patenting a technology for defensive purposes, unfortunatly when the bottomline goes red, the lawyers decend like vultures and make a mess like we have now. Perhaps want we realy need is a way to register prior arts in some official, or quaasi-offficial manner, so that an idea that is useful and necessary to a company, can be made unpatentable by others and used against the originating company.

About as simple as it gets...

[rusty0101]

If you want to get a protocol appproved by the W3C, as a standard for use on the internet, your protocol may not use a pattented (or pattent pending) operation which would require that people using this standard pay you, or another company (the holder of the pattent) ongoing fees.

This includes, but is not limited to, RAND (Reasonable And Non-Discrimanatory) royalties. The reason that RAND pattents are included is that what is Reasonable or non-discriminatory to one company or developer may not be reasonable or non-discrimanatory to someone else. Just because I am not bothered by a $1500 one time fee, and $0.000025 per copy royalty rate, does not mean that Apue in India may consider either to be reasonable.

This does not prevent someone from requiring that the credits screen for any application using that person's pattented techcnology display at least as prominently as the other developers for the application, credit towards the pattent holder.

Then again, perhaps I should have read the article.

-Rusty

Re:About as simple as it gets...

[DesertFalcon]

Thankee kindly, sir.

*waits 20 seconds...*

What happened to royalty free?

[smiff]

Apparently, there's a loophole in the royalty-free standard. Can someone tell me when this happened? From the Computer World article:

But the group also included an exception provision that will make it possible for members to consider alternate licensing terms when it's deemed impossible to meet the royalty-free goal, he said.

...

Don Deutsch, vice president of standards strategy at Oracle Corp., said the provision was a last-minute compromise designed to address the concerns of IBM and Microsoft. Deutsch added that he expects it to be approved.

All the news reports I saw mentioned royalty-free. This is the first I've heard about an exception.

Re:What happened to royalty free?

[Daniel Phillips]

"But the group also included an exception provision that will make it possible for members to consider alternate licensing terms when it's deemed impossible to meet the royalty-free goal, he said." ...

"Don Deutsch, vice president of standards strategy at Oracle Corp., said the provision was a last-minute compromise designed to address the concerns of IBM and Microsoft. Deutsch added that he expects it to be approved."

All the news reports I saw mentioned royalty-free. This is the first I've heard about an exception.

It looks like a last-minute double-cross to me, all right.

Re:What happened to royalty free?

[russellini]

It's not at all a last-minute compromise. The RAND exception has been a part of the PPWG policy since last February, at least. See http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-2002022 6/#sec-Exception.

The current royalty-free policy is a shift from a previously announced August 2001) RAND policy. There were some (arguably) good reasons for a RAND policy; but the PPWG has decided that the only good reason for a RAND policy is if there is no way around the use of patented code.

Hence the exception still exists as a useful remnant of what used to be the RAND rule. Weitzner stressed that it's tough to use because the PPWG doesnt want people to use it easily. And remember, Berners-Lee has to sign off on everything, and it would really take a lot for him to sign off on a RAND Recommendation.

Also - a key part of the RAND exception is that the terms of the license (RAND or RF) must be clearly stated upfront. So they don't get submarined (a la Rambus - grrrr)

Re:What happened to royalty free?

[smiff]

Well that was certainly helpful. I suppose I should have read it before-hand.

Weitzner stressed that it's tough to use because the PPWG doesnt want people to use it easily. And remember, Berners-Lee has to sign off on everything, and it would really take a lot for him to sign off on a RAND Recommendation.

I don't see where Berners-Lee has to sign off on anything. According to the latest draft, it is up to the Patent Advisory Group (PAG) to reach a consensus on whether or not to use a non-RF patent. The PAG is composed of:

• Advisory Committee Representatives of each W3C Member organization participating in the Working Group (or alternate designated by the AC Rep)
• Working Group Team Contact
• W3C counsel
• Working Group Chair, ex officio
• Domain Leader responsible for the Working Group
• Others suggested by the Working Group Chair and/or the Team with the approval of the Director

I'm not convinced that it's all that difficult to reach consensus. To reach consensus, Everyone in the PAG has to either agree to the license or abstain. Also, noone in the PAG can object to the license. The most likely person to object is the W3C counsel, and I can easily see him/her mindlessly abstaining. Everyone else has an agenda. That agenda may well involve eliminating competition from the open source community.

Re:What happened to royalty free?

[russellini]

As Bob Wyman pointed out, I haven't looked at the new final draft in depth just yet. But my understanding of the W3C Recommendation Process (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr. html#RecsW3C)is that the Director is "responsible for assessing consensus" before a W3C Rec is issued (see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/orga nization.html#def-Director). I interpret this to mean that no finished product goes out the W3C door without Tim B-L's explicit approval.

I'm guessing that if the PAG has given its unanimous approval, then B-L won't personally object to the finished product. But remember, the PAG is already stacked with people sympathetic to B-L's anti-patent beliefs; so these people (including the W3C counsel as you suggest) will already do B-L's dirty work so he won't have to. Very similar to the way that Weitzner was appointed head of the PPWG - if B-L had appointed a pro-patents person to head the PPWG, the PPWG never would have listened to all the people who support the RF policy, and surely the W3C would embrace RAND more than it does now.

Re:What happened to royalty free?

[smiff]

But my understanding of the W3C Recommendation Process (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr. html#RecsW3C)is that the Director is "responsible for assessing consensus"

The term consensus is already clearly defined. There isn't much leeway in the assessment.

But remember, the PAG is already stacked with people sympathetic to B-L's anti-patent beliefs

I don't see it that way at all. My reading is that each new proposed standard has a different PAG. Except for the W3C counsel, everyone in the PAG comes from the Working Group.

The "Working Group" is composed of the people who are working on a particular standard. So there will be one set of organizations working on one standard, another set working on another standard.

If Microsoft, HP, and IBM form a Working Group for a new web music standard, they pretty much dictate whether or not related patents are royalty-free.

This was TIMELY...until April 30th.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was TIMELY...until April 30th.

Still not GNU friendly...

[Anonymous Coward]

See section 5 item 3. It's still there, in plain view. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html for why this is bad for ALL people.

By when?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who makes a posting in May for an April deadline??

I have to p

[anonymous loser]

So what you're saying is you plan to pre-emptively patent their policy to prevent patent proliferation? Preposterous!

Think about it.

[Hal The Computer]

Have you ever invented anything? I know I certainly haven't, however, if I did I would want to be able to make money off of it. A lot of people/companies would not attempt to innovate anything. Your amazing idea would stifle innovation. What might be more useful would be looking at frivilous litigation with respect to patents. Maybe awarding greater monetary compensation for frivilous lawsuits?

Re:Think about it.

[the_2nd_coming]

no, I don't think pattents and copyrights need to exist. people who want to create something for money will be replaced by people who just want to better the world.

If I invented some new tech that could benifit the world I would most likely make it available to everyone for free, though becasue pattents exist, I would probably register it with the USPTO just so sme preditory company does not steel the idea and patent it for money.

Re:Think about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure.. if the research costs are delta.

Patents are intended to provide incentive to researchers in the form of guaranteeing a monopoly long enough for the researchers to recoup their costs + enough profit to make the process worthwhile.

Granted, removal of patents would allow much more low-cost research and hence innovation. However, as software developers in an industry where innovations are almost entirely abstract and rarely require expensive physical resources, we tend to forget that there are industries in which research is insanely expensive. The hardware industry, for instance. Why would Intel spend literally billions researching microprocessor technology if they could freely leech the latest innovations off of, e.g., Sun?

I think the implementation of our patent system is pretty damned broken, but to suggest that we should abandon the idea of patents entirely is ridiculous.

not a GNU problem, though, because...

[feepcreature]

To summarise:

The proposed royalty free policy says that any royalty-free licence...

may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation;

[W3C]

The Free Software Foundation says that such a limit infringes a clause of the GPL:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement... conditions are imposed on you... that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

[GPL]

The example seems OK. A limited licence that allows you to use patented algorithms to implement a standard does not prohibit anyone from writing or distributing code that implements the standard. So far so good.

But the limit would prohibit someone who received the code from modifying it to go beyond just implementing the standard. And the GPL does grant that right to anyone who receives the code. And it prevents you from denying the right to anyone who might receive the code.

But I'm not sure the GPL makes you responsible for guaranteeing that right to every third party -- it just prevents you from removing it yourself. So maybe you can distribute the code after all, since it is not you who may (or may not) restrict recipients from carrying out their rights under the GPL.

You are no more responsible for patent owners' potential litigation against recipients than you are for any other independent factor that might prevent a recipient from modifying the source - like a lack of money, time, tools, or clues. Patent owners' litigation against recipients is no more pertinent to a distributor than any other independent factor.

After all, there are lots of other laws that restrict the reuse and modification of GPL'd code (in spite of clauses of the GPL). You aren't allowed to use it for illegal purposes, for a start. And if that restriction (on the recipient) doesn't prevent you from distributing the code, then nor can patent restrictions (on the recipient) prevent distribution.

Moreover, code GPL'd in a software-patent-free jurisdiction could already be distributed to one where patents might prevent use or modification of the code -- and it's hardly the intent of the GPL to prevent distribution of code in Scandinavia, just because US laws may be a bit of a mess. Otherwise the GPL could be stymied by the existence of a single perverse jurisdiction anywhere in the world.

Of course you should probably talk to a lawyer if any of this matters to you. What do I know?

And in some jurisdictions this might degenerate into wrangling about the intent of those who used the GPL (and/or the intent of the GPL, which may not be the same thing). There are lots of ways this could go. That's why the GPL's absolute purity seems a bit too fundamentalist for me, though I see its advantages too.

Re:not a GNU problem, though, because...

[imhotep1]

The GPL issue is essentially moot, because anyone who wanted to release their code GPL could just bundle the patented code into separate files, and release the whole product under a split license,
i.e.: This program is released under GPL, except for the files "protocol-x.c" and "protocol-x.h" which are released under the W3C Royalty Free license.

That would satisfy both licenses, and still fulfill the author's open source intentions.

Re:not a GNU problem, though, because...

[feepcreature]

...bundle the patented code into separate files, and release the whole product under a split license...

but that would not help users who can't compile the code themselves.

If you can only distribute stuff to folk with compilers and the skill to use them, there is still a problem.

Re:not a GNU problem, though, because...

[imhotep1]

Well, not to sound overly retortive, but who really cares what the binary license is. A binary only user is restricted to using the product "as is," and can't, practically, modify it to do something else.

With very few exceptions, you may distribute a binary to the same people to whom you may distribute your source. The binary would be under the same split license as the source, it just wouldn't practically mean anything, since a binary can't (practically) be modified.

All of this is assuming we are speaking about a license that is royalty free, or otherwise not a restrictive license. Yes, if a company grants me an exclusive, one time use license for a library, and I link it to my otherwise GPL'ed source code, the result is undistributable, but if the license is royalty free (so that end users may freely redistribute it,) and allowed to be distributed, then a split license with an otherwise GPL'ed source tree (and the resulting binary) would remain open source.

For example: Had Fraunhofer Gesellschaft released their ISO mp3 code under a free (as in beer) but restrictive (as in not free as in speech) license, that said something to the effect of, "this code can only be used to encode files into mp3 format, but not to decode," then instead of the entire mp3 programming movement going underground, perhaps they would have only collected royalties from the mp3 players (which, if it were a very small royalty, might actually work,) but freely encouraged people to make converters to their format (thus, encouraging more people to buy the for (a hopefully reasonable) cost players. A GPL'ed encoder could be written, and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft code could be listed as under a separate license. The player could even be GPL'ed, with the library for the actual codeing being the for cost purchase.

I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that as long as companies do not have restrictive licenses, patent rights can be maintained, and even so profit maid, while still respecting the bulk of the open source community spirit.

The GPL is a wonderful thing, but fear of other licenses, even those with some degree of restriction, alienates traditional model businesses who have a lot to offer the open source community.

I did

[zogger]

I did, made some money, and released it into the wild. It's a simple tool, with a new twist.( no need for details, it's a weird industrial niche tool) I invented it, designed it, took it to a machine shop, took all my spare loot, had as many as I could afford made, sold them easily, and that's it. I only made a few hundred bucks from it. I didn't get a patent, although I could have, but for several reasons I didn't. It's too expensive and hard right off the bat, it's insane complicated expensive nutso. I had no desire to make zillions of dollars from it, it was neat enough to see so many people go YES, and adopt it. It's in the wild now, and I know several other companies developed and built their own models, and I have no idea how many thousands are out there in daily use, but that's cool. I even one time saw someone who doesn't even know me using one of my tools on a tv news clip! that was a hoot! When I have the time and space and spare loot and opportunity, I have several more practical ideas kicking around in the old noodle here. I'll probably do the same thing as I did with the other one. I don't code, but I can build things, and design. And I like sharing, it's a nice concept. Yes, it would be sorta nice to make some more money from these efforts, I am perpetually sorta kinda dirt poor, but... I guess that isn't as important to me. Why, I don't know, but I've always been that way. Every time in the past I fixated on "making money" as my primary life goal I noticed it sort of got out of hand quickly, it was changing me to something I don't like to see in other people. So I don't do that anymore. That's as close as I can describe it.

heard an interesting discussion along these lines the other day. when someone is so fixated on food, we say they have an eating disorder, they are gluttonous, that this can be bad. when someone is so fixated on sex that they go nuts with it, go overboard, when it becomes their main goal, when they lose respect for others and themselves, then we say they become perverse, perhaps, it's considered as not a healthy thing, they've gone beyond what is healthy. When someone has a drink, that's ok, no biggee, when someone drinks every day, it can indicate something, when they are drunk every day, all day long, we say they are alcoholic, and this isn't a good thing.

Now, if someone makes some money, that's OK. when someone is fixated on it, when it overcomes all their other primary goals, we call it 'being a successful businessman", give them awards, call them "mr ceo".

Why in the other cases is excessive/compulsive uncontrollable behavior bad, but when it comes to accumulation of money and profits-at-any-cost it automagically becomes "good"? From where I stand, all those are illnesses, the latter called "greed" and "love of money".

of course you are not a worthless 'politicker'

[Anonymous Coward]

no. of course not. you are just a 'regular guy' who wants to get 'real work' done. uh huh.

Proprietary software can compete

[TrentC]

I feel that forcing developers to avoid technologies that are patent-encumbered will promote the Free Software agenda at the expense of freedom: freedom to create the very technologies that allowed Free Software to thrive in the first place!

There is nothing preventing proprietary software from competing in this space. They just can't force their only competition to be proprietary by allowing for patented technologies to be embedded in the "standard".

If they want to compete on quality of software, let them compete with free and open-source software as well.

Jay (=

But will it affect "One-click?"

[Concerned Onlooker]

From reading the article it looks like the W3C proposal is about interoperability on the web. Does that mean that idiotic patents such as the one on e-commerce and streaming will be revoked? And while it may legally hold water, who was so on the take as to approve Amazon's One-Click patent? I suppose I should have placed a registered symbol or trademark symbol after that or something. Perhaps I should move now to get my patent on No-Click buying. By the way, you all owe me five dollars.

Enercon

[jeti]

Read up the case of Enercon (producer of wind power plants).

They thought that they had such a lead that they wouldn't need to rely on patents.
Then another company patented Enercons innovations and sued for infringement. That company has AFAIK
gone out of business. But as a result of an unfair trial, Enercon was disallowed to sell to the US for ten years.

I think patents are getting abused to a point where it would be better to get rid of them entirely. But you can't opt out.

Can I?

[nacs]

I'd like to patent the 1-click XHTML 1.1 validator ... ideally when Bezos and the W3C aren't looking.

Authority and Legitimacy in the W3C

[russellini]

I wrote a paper about the W3C's PPWG and the extent to which we can consider their rulemaking process legitimate. I conclude that extended periods for public comment, invitation of outside experts Moglen and Perens, and extensive replies to public comments (from Daly and Weitzner) meets a high "democratic" standard. Berners-Lee's "benevolent dictatorship" is centrally important, as well.

http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~russelal/papers/curre nt /alr-w3c-tprc.pdf

Re:Authority and Legitimacy in the W3C

[bobwyman]

Andrew Russell's paper on the W3C PPWG seems to have been last revised on 18-Mar-2003, yet the most recent version of the W3C Patent Policy was released the next day, on 19-Mar-2003. The difference is significant since Russell's paper talks much about how the W3C had accepted a royalty-free policy, yet the policy that was released provides explicit exceptions that will allow encumbered royalty-based methods to be included in W3C recommendations in some circumstances. While Russell's paper is very interesting as a snapshot in time, it will need to be rewritten in light of the current policy in order to be truly useful.

bob wyman

too bad nobody listens to the w3c

[Anonymous Coward]

just some random group of nobodies yapping again.

Rationale for new patent policy

[harriet nyborg]

There is no rationale for the proposed W3C patent policy.

GSM (the European mobile phone standard) is the world's most successful standard, used by 750 million people the world over.

GSM is covered by hundreds, if not thousands of patents, owned by dozens of entities - large, medium, and small. Most of these patents are made available under RAND licensing policies, some are not and are bitterly contested.

And yet, GSM exists. And thrives. And grows.

Any argument that patents would be "death" to W3C either ignore this fact, or is ignorant of it.

Secret Comment Period? Why a press release then?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to keep a secret, you don't issue a press release...

March 19
http://www.w3.org/2003/03/patentpolicy-pressre leas e

and further, you don't post a story idea to /. It took 4 hours for the story to appear on /. on the 19th, and public comments were still welcome.

Troll, troll..

[Anonymous Coward]

will not happen due to this World Trade Organisation agreement.
Since when US obeys international agreements/laws?

Do you understand the goal.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The radical growth of the Internet has been achieved
> largely because of the freedom of its developers to use
> the tools they felt necessary to implement the services
> that have become standards.
Agreed.

> While it is true that Free Software to a large part has
> been helpful to the process, I feel that forcing
> developers to avoid technologies that are
> patent-encumbered will promote the Free Software
> agenda at the expense of freedom: freedom to create
> the very technologies that

This W3C proposal doesn't do this this. This proposal
*does* demand that those who would creat a W3C
standard grant everyone the freedom to implement it,
exactly those freedoms which you agree are so valuable.
Implementors may still promote their standard in the
open market without granting this collective freedom.
But if they do that, why should they *be granted*
the market advantage endowed by the of the W3C
moniker.

> ... but true freedom comes from not handing control of
> everything to one faction . A monopoly over the
> Internet is just as bad in the hands of OSS developers
> as it would be in the hands of Microsoft.

This proposal merely demands that all developers,
OSS or otherwise be free to implement W3C standards.
You seem to claim that this proposal somehow
shuts out closed sourced developers. The only
way you claim makes sense is IF COMMERCIAL
SOFTWARE IS NOT PROFITABLE EXCEPT WITH
A PATENT-MONOPOLY. That is, if (and only if) non
OSS software can not compete in the open market.

Larry Wall was wise.

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry's doctrine is that any program accepting data
should be liberal. But that any program (including
in my view a website) *emitting* data should be
conservative. The standard is therefore for data
*acceptors*, good old fashioned engineering
paranoia is for data emitors.

It's not good whinging "Oh, but the standard
allows it" if you have gone and used complex
features. This is the principle I take to my C
programming, and I wish web developers should
understand it.