Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jeff Jaffe Named CEO of W3C

Posted by kdawson on from the what-price-standards dept.

blozza2070 notes the news that Jeff Jaffe has been appointed CEO of the World Wide Web Consortium. Until January Jaffe was CTO at Novell and, while his name hasn't come up very often in this community, he is one of the architects of the Novell-Microsoft patent deal. A reading of Jaffe's blog while at Novell tends to paint him as a software patent supporter, Microsoft apologist, and no fan of the FSF. This strongly worded page at Boycott Novell features copious links to support the above characterization.

3 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Mixed Feelings by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can I get a +5, Insightful for repeating part of the parent post, too? Dude, he already said that.

    Wow, you're right, sorry, I didn't read the whole post before I commented...but...this is slashdot, isn't that a requirement for posting? Who actually reads articles? /. is a forum for half-baked, half-assed opinionated remarks written solely for the purpose of starting flame wars. At least that is what I was told when I signed up years ago.

  2. How will this affect HTML5 video??? by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1, Troll

    This is terrible news.

    His swan song even talks about the "great satisfaction" of working with "Inventive people who write more software patents per capita than anywhere else".

    HTML5 already has big problems with software patents forcing it to exclude all video format recommendations. What influence will this guy have in W3C?

    --
    Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
    1. Re:How will this affect HTML5 video??? by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 0, Troll

      What I find amusing is that often, within the entitlement community, software patents are derided as "something obvious, on a computer," but it seems to be that the converse case is much more prevalent, which is to say that the entitlement community thinks anything that was done on a computer is somehow obvious regardless of effort. Are you really laboring under the delusion that the H.264 spec didn't require serious inventive work? Or maybe it's just your contention that since it is done on a computer, they should be forced to give it away for free, regardless of that effort...