Slashdot Mirror
W3C Approved Patent Policy: Royalty Free Standards
Danny Weitzner writes "The World Wide Web Consortium has approved the W3C
Patent Policy based on review by the W3C Advisory Committee and thanks to lots of input and cajoling from the Open Source community and slashdoters. Read the public Director's decision. We're the first major standards organization that sets the explicit goal of producing only standards that can be implemented without paying patent royalties. Our policy requires legal commitments from all who contribute to the development of Web standards that patents held by the contributor will be available on royalty-free terms. Both proprietary and open source software have been critical to the growth of the Web. With this policy, we intend to enabled continued innovation by both open source and proprietary development."
Unfortunately, Bezos already has a patent on the use of a royalty-free patent policy. Though I'm sure he'd be willing to license it to W3C for a reasonable fee.
Some good developments in the great techno-legal world war. There had been too many bad ones lately...
This one would have been a small disaster if it had gone wrong. Now let's hope the EU makes the right decision too!
Daniel
Carpe Diem
I wonder whether this will make getting software patents easier or harder, and whether people who failed to get a royalty patent go for one of these instead?
It's really a shame that they have to allow patents at all. If they didn't they'd alienate most commercial contributors who'd then go to another standards body, or none at all. Since they do allow patents, though, it continues to promote the rediculous patenting of software processes.
Developers: We can use your help.
Damn that viral licensing ;)
It's good that they are doing something to protect the people. Now I just hope they don't screw up XHTML 2.
Get Firefox!
Somewhere, hopefully, a bunch of patent lawyers are groaning.
Your own damn fault, guys. You got greedy.
There's only so many people you can harass at the party before you won't get invited to the next ball. Have fun suing each other out of existance.
does this mean .NET will never be a web standard?
thank you W3C!!!
Might as well have said: "After much deliberation and comittee meetings, we have come to the decision that 15+1 equals 16. And therefore in all of our publications page 15 will be followed by page 16. We should all thank and congratulate those who contributed time, expertise, patience and a spirit of cooperation to this effort."
I could have sworn that, for some time, the W3C used to specificaly state that it did not produce standards, only reccomendations. That, apparently has changed, and I'm wondering just when that happened.
Along these lines, just how does a vendor consortium such as the W3C become a standards body? Is it simply a matter of judging public acceptance and then declaring oneself to be a standards body? (I think that's basically what OASIS did.)
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
It's things like this that help sway the growing feeling that the corporations and lawyers will take over the world, and my life. Sure... it may still happen, this is just a drop in the ocean, but it's a little light of hope that I'm going to cling to all day, thank you :)
IMO, the driving force behind innovation in the technology sector has been money, or the promise that you can make money for inventing something and then selling it. Yes open source developers have made tremendous innovations that proprietary has not, but most of these developers have either been paid by a company (ex: a Linux distro), or were doing this development while working for another company (hobby developer). If people start to remove money from the equation, what's left? I cannot beleive the entire technology sector will continute to invent and grow as fast as it has without the promise of profit.
.sig error: carrier signal lost.
This is only one small battle won on the front of silly patents. there's still nothing stopping the USPTO from handing out patents like candy. In fact, this could encourage people to file patents, submit to the w3c committees, and lobby in the future to have that "outmoded patent provision" removed. It's a constant struggle, and while this is a good first step, it's certainly not the last
doter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dt)
:)
intr.v. doted, doting, dotes
One who shows excessive fondness or love: parents who dote on their only child.
Fair enough
Don't they teach English in schools anymore? Or are they just teaching it wrong? It's "Royalty-Free Standards", so people's brains can instantly know that it isn't to be read as "Royalty Free-Standards".
I consider my English pretty good, and I thought you were wrong there. So I dug out my Oxford Manual of Style to look up what it said about the case. And I must concede you were right. For anyone interested in why, here's the rule:
"Hyphenate two or more modifiers preceding the noun when they form a unit modifying the noun" and gives the example "a stainless-steel table", as opposed to "a table of stainless steel".
Live and learn.
So you do.
Trolling is a art,
this issue finally made me cough up the bucks and im damn glad i did
should have done it long ago
and i challenge anyone else who hasn't done so, to join now. its not a whole lot of money and they really need the support.
very good news to hear it went our way this time
This article makes me thing of a slightly strange formulation often seen in plays:
... but ... it *does* confirm to the standards. Well, almost. Well, okay, there are some things in there that will make an implementation than confirms with *only* W3C standards to crash, but that's hardly our fault. And look! We put some really neat new stuff in there to make up for it. We're on your side. Really. Trust us."
Exuent Microsoft
But then, it's probably too much to hope for. I can already see the blue-eyed look on the Softies' faces: "But
yes, we have no bananas
Or are alot of the Big wins latly going to the little man and screwing the big guy. Look at the last several legal victorys as of late. Rolayty free standards, grokster, etc. Is it possible that we are starting to finaly see the legal system work and not just be bought?
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
So,
What happens when a standard is produced in good faith by one or more parties, the W3 picks it up and ultimately generates a standard. Then everybody else picks it up and builds it into their browser, OS, application, tooth brush, and household pets.
Then, a year later, SomeEvil Co (A leader in Evil Patents since 1899.) decides that there is infringement and sues everybody involved?
The problem is two fold.. one is that there needs to be a process to search for applicable patents.. but the problem here is that too many patents are too broad. Secondly, if the search doesn't turn up any problems, whats to stop somebody from deciding that HTTP chunking infringes on their patent on, say, chunky peanut butter?
Is there a process to find *potentially applicable patents* and going to those holders to ask for explicit approval of the use? Or would that just be begging for lawsuits anyway?
This policy will never hold, as it allows patent extortionists who are not members to snipe at the W3 with licensing demands. The process for "resolving" disputes is hopelessly optimistic: the group is apparently arrogant enough to believe that the sheer power of the ideals expressed in their policy will discourage profit-seeking behavior, and that the organization will be able to muddle through without any dependencies on externally-invented IP except for that produced by good, like-minded souls who choose to give up their profits for the good of humanity.
The W3 will now have even less clout than it did during its heyday.
42
You're probably technically right, but my question is, does it matter? How many people here do you really think got it wrong? Considering that the whole point of language is to convey ideas, if the point is understood, why quibble with the details?
Or, to put it more bluntly, get the stick out of your ass and get a life.
To everyone else: I apologize for my rant, its still early and I haven't have my tea yet.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I agree that technological advances have been based largely on financially driven concepts. However, much of this was built on free underlying technologies: TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP, etc. Without these, it is doubtful that the technology we see today would even exist. It is the ways and means of strengthening and restructuring of the backbone that will either encourage or prohibit future growth.
You're confusing sales with service, the misconception that the factory model of software development is the same as the service model. At least 85 to 90% of developers do not work for companies that sell software for profit (factory model). They work for companies that need software written for their own purposes or to service others (developers in a service model). Removing all software companies will not remove much money from the equation. Most developers are paid for their service, not for their output, i.e. they're paid to get software written, not to sell bits. People pay to get software which gets the job done either by buying bits from companies with patents, which is the exception, or by buying services, which is the rule. Patents only work for the few selling bits such as Microsoft. Patents don't help most of the industry working as a service.
Developers: We can use your help.
Aren't there patents/royalties on the GIF (or is it the LZW) algorithm? If so, does that mean GIF is finally doomed?
If only Photoshop had better support for PNG optimization.
The IETF has been increasingly willing to standardise patented technologies. Examples involve Cisco's HSRP/VRRP patent and IPsec NAT traversal (with a semi-free waiver). I'm sure there are many more.
It is wonderful that the w3c is willing to keep data formats and the higher protocol levels unencumbered (this is a real victory to all the people who made their opinions known), but the infrastructure is even more important.
Couldn't the w3c recognize how much this would hurt them? I mean, look how irrelevant the Internet is now. If the IETF hadn't limited themselves to open standards like TCP/IP, etc., think how popular the Internet might be today! Everybody would be using it!
and LZW is free.
Patent #4,558,302 expires on June 20, 2003.
Joy!
Make it impossible to patent any software.
.....
.....
It already works in this country
Complicated idea:
Give vendors of goods the right to refuse payment according to how they believe the money was obtained. As well as the obvious stolen money / drug dealing / prostitution / arms dealing profits, this may well come to be extened to things like gambling winnings and lawsuit money.
Once people find their Pound Notes getting refused even despite having the Queen's head on them, these activities will cease to be profitable.
The complicated bit is finding out where someone's money came from in the first place
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
This is a great FIRST step. Basically, standards by W3C will now ensure that no one has to pay a royalty when trying to conform to the standard. Compuserve's GIF patent greed fiasco should hopefully not be repeated in future standards.
... all you MBA and Law school folks grasp! You will kill innovation, you say! Well, if this means that Amazon.com will stop coming up with "innovations" like 1-click shopping and shopping carts, I think that is okay. These "innovations" were so ridiculously obvious that it insults any technical person's intelligence to classify them as innovations.
... any technology built on our technology is legally owned by us unless you licence an "innovator" contract ... for which we charge you 50% of all sales. The fact that the work of the W3C is given away for free, doesn't make it less valuable ... rather the opposite! As such, I feel that the W3C must setup a licence agreement to prevent technologies that are built on top of it to be royalty free.
However, I think we need to go further. Technologies built on top of W3C standards should not require royalties. Ack
Why do we need to do this?
Intellectual Property lawyers are greedy greedy greedy. They don't give a crap about the technical merits of a patent or innovation. They care about how many hours they can bill you and making partner in the firm. Anyone heard of patent portfolios? I think 10-30% of why biotech is not showing the results everyone expected is that these fucking patent issues have KILLED innovation. Go Canada for rejecting the Harvard mouse patent! Biotech is out of juice and these bastards have set their eyes on tech now. We must nip this asap!
Why is this justified?
W3C commands a significant position in the evolution of the World Wide Web. If it was a for-profit organization, it could easily say
Iq
This comment doesn't make sense to me. Patent lawyers represent their clients/employers. They do what they're told. Yes, they advise their client in patent matters, but if the client says "don't go after this" or "hey, aren't they infringing on my patent?" then the lawyers listen. It's not the lawyers that got greedy, it was the patent holders.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Take a look at what W3C is working on. Most of it is XML formats and other categorizing of data. A few things (e.g. PNG) may contain novel algorithms, although in the case of PNG the format was invented to avoid the patent restrictions of GIF.
It could be argued that W3C does its job best when it produces standards which are not novel, and are essentially what any person with the same mindset would produce on a good day. This is the exact opposite of the original, non-obvious nature required (though perhaps not enforced) by US patent law.
W3C is mostly about communication standards, and it's all about interoperability. Describing stuff in XML is more of a categorization skill than an invention. Good librarians are as important as good engineers-- and patents are about as useful as bicycles for ducks.
Finally, iteroperability only works if everyone can use it. XML and "semantic web" stuff is frequently going to be web services which are parsed by spiders and middleware servers (including web servers), where vendor or technology lock-in is anathema. Patents or threats of patents are at least as likely to slow adoption of standards as to speed it.
I really do appreciate this comment.
We need more comments like this to be modded up.
We need more people who act on principle and not how employers, marketers, and retailers have trained us to.
Thank you.
I'm guessing most patent holders aren't that braindead. Unless some patent holder did it just to ensure that no one that later took over their company turned into a bunch of dicks, like Caldera. Kind of "suicide by GPL."
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The biggest problem I see with the W3C's patent policy is that it encourages corporations to license their patents on a royalty free basis until the standard has gained such widespread adoption that developers have no alternative but to comply. Then, said corporations will be able to charge exorbitant licensing fees for such patents. Sure, the W3C could then exclude them from the next standard, but given that so many developers have to focus on backward compatibility with the already established user base, excluding a patent-encumbered part of the standard from the next release would do little to alleviate the problem.
What the W3C is really doing is paving the way for another Rambus like fiasco.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
As an analyst in a company entirely dependent on spreadsheets and some half-ass implementations of Crystal Reports (which is a severly limitted package, in itself), I'd say that most of my time goes to coding (Bash, Perl, Mysql, all on Linux . . . you get the picture). No, IS doesn't support Linux, but my boss turned over a sony vaio laptop (department owned) a couple of years ago, so it doesn't really matter.
Instead of running an excel filter, copying, pasting to another sheet so it can be summed, copying the sum to another sheet, deleting the pasted data, changing the filter again, repeating until you lose all will to live (I know a guy who has been doing this for 10 years . . . what a waste), I use powerful Open Source tools to do my job faster than some mindless drone. And I have realized that programming makes all tasks, no matter how mundane, exciting and interesting. There is always a better way to program a task and infinite ways to solve the same program. Programming is really starting to become a significant means of expressing myself and has made me satisfied with my work.
However, non of this would be possible without Open Source software. I have an Economics degree and am becoming a CPA. It would be VERY difficult for me to justify the need of expensive proprietary programming tools to my employer because my background is unrelated. However, functional programming doesn't require a genius or any kind of formal education. Anyone can learn enough to become more productive. I see Open Source as the only economically feasible way to provide all the tools (not just compilers, but documentation, examples, IRC, etc . . . ) necessary to allow anyone who is interested in learning the chance to learn how to program enough to become a more productive worker.
So to conclude this rant, I see proprietary software (selling bits) as the old school way of doing things where people are stratified into their respective groups according to some powerful person's agenda. Open source, on the other hand, is a petry dish of software tools that lets all those with the will to thrive, creating a structure so complex that only god could take credit for its existence.
A side note, it is a well documented and known economic fact that as economies develop, a larger portion of the economy becomes devoted to services. Maybe we are just experiencing the development of the software industry?
I am a Mandrakeclub member.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
"It is alright to patent machines and such, but patenting ideas is absurd."
I'm curious as to the grounds on which we may claim that patents on machines are permissible, but that patents on software is impermissble.
First consider the scenario in which we create a machine which processes raw cotton. We designed both the exterior and the internal workings of the machine, cast in iron.
Now consider the scenario in which there exists a general purpose machine which could potentially be made to, amongst other things, process raw cotton. It could be made to do so by designing a particular software algorithm to do so.
In the first case the internal workings are implemented as hardware: iron gears and bearings, which control the exterior workings so as to process raw cotton.
In the second case the internal workings are implemented as software: a particular software algorithm of the particular sort which is capable of controlling this particular general purpose machine's exterior workings so as to process raw cotton.
Now, for what reason relevant to the principles at play here is it permissible to patent the internal workings of the machine implemented as hardware, while it is impermissible to patent the internal workings of the machine implemented as software.
I don't know what such a reason might be.
If you can not identify a relevant reason, please don't hold back, let's do away with patents altogether. We can talk about that sort of thing here. We can say what we believe, and what we really want to say.
It is we the people who are supposed to control this nation, not corporations and not the small minority of owners and large shareholders in these corporations.
Why don't we simply say that we don't want to play their game anymore?
Why don't we simply say that if they want to do business in OUR nation, that they will do it by the rules we stipulate or they will not do it at all?
It might not happen, but let's at least say that it should. Let's at least not give them the satisfaction of thinking they have suppressed even TALK of change.
Workers of the world unite!
"SomeEvil Co (A leader in Evil Patents since 1899.)"
.
Someevil CO, otherwise know as "SCO."
You may carryon . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
can be found at internetnews.com
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
There's a loophole several light-years wide in this W3C policy.
The patent holder can still charge you a one-time $100 million dollar _license fee_ if they want, yet still be compliant with the wording of the W3C policy of "no royalties".
Given that this is a story about standards, your reply to someone who quotes the Oxford Manual of Style hyphenation rules is pretty ironic. "You're technically right, but who cares? The idea got across" is exactly the opposite response most people had when Microsoft didn't technically follow the RFC to speed up IE http requests.
How do we stop people like Bezos from patenting ideas and methods based on patent-free web standards like cookies and databases?
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Is there a way to make the W3C standards work like the GPL, in that any standards that build on them cannot be royalty-based either? I'd love to see things like Amazon's retarded patenting rampage quelled, or at least prevent fees and litigation from such patents. I seem to remember that last year some company tried to assert patent rights to E-Commerce and Web-based credit card transactions...
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
True, 35 USC 102(b) allows prior one year span on publications.
But 35 USC 102(a) precludes patenting on invention known or used by others before patentee's date of conception (irrespective of one year grace period).
So if others publish then not patentable (one year grace period therefore only applies to patentee's own publication)
While it is a very good thing that people who want to implement applications that follow the standards don't need to pay money for doing that, it is of course bad that they still may need to pay other things, for example freedom of license. The restrictions may be such that GPL'd applications are not allowed, for whatever reason. If MS or similar companies abuse this, then this may not be a good thing after all.
"royalty-free patent" IS A "patent" by definition :o(
"royalty-free patents' standards" ARE "standards of evils & daemons"
JCPM (c) (copyright)
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It'
Anyone allowing proprietary, patented methods to potentially infect their company would have rocks in their head.
How can W3C ever trust any closed source IP when it involves placing yourself one clever lawyer away from being sued for applying that IP outside the sandbox of the initial agreement.
In the current climate, licencing patented methods could be even more deadly in the long run. Licenced companies may end up preparing for an onslaught of creditor raised IP suits ever time a past or present partner goes bankrupt.
Anyone who thinks that the central argument of the SCO case is directed at open source software should consider the possibility that IP licencing has put a bomb in their hold.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
As I recall, being royalty-free is a step in the right direction but insufficient for the Free Software community to be able to continue to innovate. The FSF made their concerns quite clear--if the W3C allows field-of-use restrictions to encumber standards, one is prevented from developing software that goes outside the prescribed activity.
I didn't see any language in Tim Berners-Lee's statement that directly addressed this concern.
Digital Citizen