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
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 will make no difference. W3C does not issue patents, governments do. The issue here is that patented work with non-free licenses will not be accepted as W3C standards.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
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.
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
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
Trolling is a art,
Don't you think it's better if it develops more slowly but in the right direction (to bring people together in the greatest social revolution since the invention of writing) rather than really fast in the wrong direction (another method for people to make money)...?
I mean, what's the big hurry?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
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
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?
Yes it would. But that's not what the WC3 is doing, they aren't ending software patents. They are saying that nothing that requires paying royalties on a patent to implement can be part of the standard. You can patent your cool new *ML generator but you can't require everyone who uses *ML to pay a fee. This will allow more people to inovate not stifel inovation.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
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.
Anyone else find it interesting that this post was made a few minutes ago and almost instantly got exactly 4 moderation points for being interesting?
I'll tell you what's left when you remove royalties from the equation -- and it certainly isn't shills like you. It is innovation, freedom, and advancement for everyone. Why should I have to pay a guy a buck because he came up with the idea of a "shopping cart" on a website? Why can't I take the idea and move it forward? It is alright to patent machines and such, but patenting ideas is absurd. (And, on a lesser note, I wouldn't mind them patenting their code and only their code -- but what's the use of that?)
And ask yourself this: did the internet grow by leaps and bounds because Microsoft came out with IIS or because a bunch of organizations decided to pool their efforts to make one solid web server that can be configured to do anything a web server should do? I personally think proprietary software is holding us back and costing us far more than the cost of licensing the software because we can't take their ideas and build on them.
Then where do we get paid? Two ways: By implementing existing solutions in a way that people can use them, or by implementing entirely new solutions. For both instances, people are willing to pay money to have someone else do it. For both instances, it really doesn't matter whether the end result is Open Source or proprietary to them. We know that going the Open Source will allow us to satisfy more people with better products than the other case, because IT will constantly be evolving and building on the successes and failures of the past, rather than limiting the growth to one giant monopoly.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
and LZW is free.
Patent #4,558,302 expires on June 20, 2003.
Joy!
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".