Slashdot Log In
W3C Considers Royalty-Bound Patents In Web Standards
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:16 AM
from the 59th-day-11th-hour-final-minute dept.
from the 59th-day-11th-hour-final-minute dept.
Svartalf writes: "There's a report on Linux Today about a proposed loosening of requirements on patented technologies being submitted for W3C consideration. Called RAND, short for 'reasonable and non-discriminatory,' it basically changes the position of W3C with respects to patents. This is a real problem as all of you know, considering that we've had all kinds of fun with other 'reasonable' licensing (MP3 and GIF come immediately to mind) -- the cutoff for comments is tomorrow (9-30) so if you want to get them in do it NOW." September 30 is now today rather than tomorrow. The same issue was raised in a post yesterday as well, but many readers have submitted news of this Linux Today piece. Reader WhyDoubt points out that comments on the change are archived on the W3C's site, including this pithy comment from Alan Cox. Do you think that fee-bound patents have a place in the standards promulgated by the W3C? Read the Patent Policy Working Group's FAQ, then add your comment.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
respond (not just on this board) (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, dont just comment on this board; go ahead and send that email with your level- headed-non-profane thoughts.
This certainly looks like a sneak-it-in approach with such a short public comment periond - especially for something this large.
Hopefully some prudent arguments can be made to convince the W3C folks.
Re:respond (not just on this board) (Score:2)
Maybe a big fat cheque in a brown envelope? If, as it appears, they're playing the money game, the only way to stop them will be to give them more money than anyone else.
Hard to say it better than Alan Cox (Score:4, Insightful)
Said after pointing out the secretive and rule violating manner this happened and rightly snearing at how this will contribute the purpose of the organization, interoperability. His prediction:
This would mean SVG became a multi-vendor consortium pushing a private specification. But let's face it - with the patents involved - that is precisely what it is.
And so the internet becomes TV as all are shoved out to be replace by three or four big broadcasters. Can it happen? Sure it can, just look at all the empty TV and radio spectrum. There is no technical or real economic reason the airwaves are filled with nothing but comercial noise or static. It's a problem with bad laws.
my comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry. (Score:2)
Having a completely open stardard is definately better than having a standard with patents involved. Completely open means anyone can take it and work with it... without paying the piper.
Re:Sorry. (Score:2)
So existing business A submits technology A under patent and uses it. Your saying that a new business B should be able to start and use technology from business A without their permission. That's laughable. If business B wants to do something then let them do it better with there own technology B. We don't need 100 companies doing the same thing that someone already did.
Facing reality, instead, you'll get 100 browsers that all do about the same thing. Unfortunatly, they'll each only work for their own exclusive subset of the web. In other words, it'll be like Prodogy and Compuserve in the last few days before they realized that the net had replaced them, only they'll have patents to hold back the tide.
But why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But why? (Score:2)
This is why Microsoft is evil. Not becsause it's developers are evil. They are probably very nice and hard-working and creative. It's the abominable corperate abuse that makes them so repellant to any moral, computer-using human. Those of you that use and like microsoft products should stand up to this. Maybe through piracy, and other forms of civil disobedience. And if you can find and use alternatives such as linux or bsd or whatever, then that would obviously be better.
And this one is probably stretching it a bit for you folks, but try to use mozilla and not IE. There needs to be a long term viable option to IE. I use mozilla and it does everything I need from a web browser, but IE obviously does more.
This is a step FORWARD (Score:4, Interesting)
What you're forgetting is that the very transistors that make up your beloved computers were once patented. Without that patent, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The question we should be asking is, do we want to hold back web standards by two decades to satisfy our irrational aversion to patents? I don't think we should. The consequences on the growth of the web will be disastrous if we don't take sensible steps like allowing patented technology into web standards.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:3, Insightful)
placing a patent on a physical device that is the result of research obviously benefits business and mankind at large. however, when one applies a patent to a protocol that is intended to be part of the fabric that allows the global human community to communicate it hinders not only that communication but other business interests from using it.
you seem to forget that the very web board you are reading and commenting on would not exist, along with 99% of the rest of the internet, were patents accepted and applied on standard internet technologies. patents do have their place, but open network standards is not one of them.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, the FET was patented in 1927, and it is this that makes modern computers go, not the BJT of which you speak. The original patent holder didn't make a damn dime. (Yes, it was because he couldn't make one, only design one.)
The transistor is a staple of modern electronics because it is superior technology. The concern about the W3C is that inferior technology will become standard as corporations push for profits. This isn't very far fetched (Microsoft), and that is why we Slashdotters are worried.
Parent
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:2, Insightful)
If the W3C wants to include some obscure technology that for example helps handicapped people communicate and there is no clear alternative then this may be an area where patents in standards are a good idea but I am too synical to think that this is the only time this rule would be applied. I think that a lesser technology that is free of patent entanglements is always better.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:3, Insightful)
The question we should be asking is, do we want to push forward web standards by two decades to satisfy our rational aversion to patents.
Why, yes I do.
Imagine if we had to pay someone everytime the http request was invoked, or everytime an html page was viewed - yep - that would have certainly moved things forward.
Feel free to make your money with patents - but dont stick it in a standard.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we exchange text on the web, already, of any arbitrary type and format? Yes.
Can we exchange images on the web, already, of any number of supported types? Yes.
Can we run backend scripts, already, to add functionality (such as, say, to implement a discussion board?). Yes.
Sound? Yes. Video? Yes. etc etc.
In fact the only niches for patented 'standard extensions' all involve commerce.
It's not very trendy to say so, but virtually all of the basic infrastructure technologies we're now using were developed at government expense. From TCP/IP to HTTP itself (Berners-Lee was on Supercollider funds at CERN when he developed it), WE paid for these inventions. Which makes them COMMONS which makes them OURS to share however we choose. Period.
Honestly, what business does Corporate America have using cynical exploitation of patent law to co-opt what was developed with taxpayer money? Can anyone without secret (or not so secret) fantasies of being the next Bill Gates really give me a logical, non-theological reason why we should let that happen?
I have grown so weary of even having to argue this anymore.
:M
Parent
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:3, Interesting)
And copy protection.
In 6-8 months when someone patents a meta tag that disables the "View Source" button and disables Copy/Paste, if the PTO doesn't think it's an obvious invention send them a link to this comment.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of an open standard is that anyone can implement it. If we allow the use of patents in open standards, then they cannot be implemented by just anyone, you need a license, or a whole bunch of licenses, to implement it. Furthermore, as far as I understand it companies aren't legally obligated to license a patent to any particular party, so if they decide that they don't want you, in particular, competing with them they might decide not to license it to you. All it takes is one company on the list to do this and you can *never* implement that "open standard."
We should expect this to destroy the usefulness of open standards and bring a big step back to the days when software companies had total control over your computing experience. The Internet itself only exists because of the adoption of an open, non-patented standard, TCP/IP. Imagine if Microsoft, for example, had a patent pending on TCP/IP, where would we be now? Every little Internet app author would have to fork out cash to them, probably on a yearly basis.
Parent
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:2, Insightful)
you wrote:
> The consequences on the
> growth of the web will be disastrous if we don't
> take sensible steps like allowing patented
> technology into web standards.
Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that Internet growth would be hindered? I mean, it's exactly the opposite: Historically, there have been <b>no</b> patents regulating the use of web technologies and almost everyone would argue that this <i>allowed</i> the web to become ubiquitous.
With regards to your "transistors claim": one might argue that I have a computer now because the patent on transistors finally expired and computers can be constructed without paying royalties for those, thus empowering me to own a computer even though I'm not exactly wealthy. And that without the patent, we might have had personal computers much earlier.
And why should patents be necessary to recoup research investments? I thought product sales of the finished/improved product are what's necessary to recoup the costs. Time to market (together with the experience gained by being the first) can be much more preventive of cheap imitators than patents. So, while patents are possibly helpful[1] to securing investments, they are certainly not "absolutely necessary".
Yours Malte #8-)
[1] I doubt even that, since most inventors/innovators can't afford to even enter the market because all the base technologies everyone needs are patented and only established players with patent-exchange agreements are able to compete, not newcomers faced with prohibitive royalty costs.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. At least this is an profable statement in in scietific understanding at least thus "not right".
The field effect transistor FET was long patent before even the first transistor was build. The patent holder didn't see get a penny.
I'm not 100% sure how it was with the "classic" PNP transistor. As far I know it was mainly developed by military, they survive pretty well without patents
On the other hand I've a *very* *very* old book at home about radio technology. It was prior to transistor age, times where all was done with tubes. In on of the last chapters they made an *outlook* to the future of radio technology. One thing they spend several pages was a new effect than when put to speical negative loaded needles, into a strange material (the p material) they could gain intensification effects by this setup. At this times nobody yet understood why and how. but the effect was already known, without an patent. I personally doubt that today electronics would look any different without, how as the same with your postulate this is not proofable so at least also "not right"
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:3, Interesting)
This is an opinion that you share with many in business that has never actually been proven. Patents do allow large businesses to make money, that much is certain. In particular, large businesses can ignore the patents of smaller businesses, who cannot afford the legal fees to protect their patents. Meanwhile, investors simply wont invest in a small company unless it has patents, which forces us all to gain them, even if we dont believe in them.
So, please provide some evidence before you spout off calling us silly and immature.
I have read reports that when the www came on-line in 1993 that innovation and development flourished in Europe, however patent filing suffered because everyone could claim some part of the innovation. That is, greater communication caused innovation, not patents. Now, many company's aware of this, actively prevent communication, so that they can get patents. Therefor, patents are preventing communication, and therefor, patents prevent innovation.
The idea that patents are to encourage people to invest is debunked by the number of patents that are awarded for incredibly obvious things. The stantard arguement against this is "its only obvious because you've seen it already". However I have direct personal experience where we have come up with a solution to a problem and found later that it was patented. That is, we have had a problem, and solved in a very obvious and easy way, and found that someone got a patent for it last year. I have seen patent's where the innovation is a new using of two existing standards where that use was actually documented in the standards!
However, even if we managed to smarten up patent judges, to remove the awarding of obvious patents, I still believe that patents are not neccessary to protect investment. The arguement for patents is that someone can spend a bunch of time and materials creating a new design, which someone else then comes along and copies. However, this idea is not real. The most difficult aspects of some of our inventions have not been patented, because they cant be, however a competitor will find them hard to copy without expending the same effort.
Finally, copying a thing does not invalidate the investment of the original inventor, because the inventor knows why it was made that way, while the copier only knows how. If someone copies our product, it will take them many months to do so, and at the end of it, we will be rolling out version two. They, however, will not have the understanding to make a version two of their own, and will have to wait for ours to copy.
Patents are a tool of investors. It makes the people with the money the most important, not the people with the ideas, or the people who would benefit from them. Getting rid of patents will improve the quality of life of everyone. End of story.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent law exists to "promote the sciences and useful arts". It does not, nor should it exist to "allow businesses to recoup their research investments". This is natural-right thinking which is explicitly rejected by the founding fathers via the constitution.
The biggest problem with patent law is that it is now the providence of big business and lawyers; when it was originally there for "inventors". Patent mechansim is not very accessable by the general developer... else we would have far less patents since the PTO would be more up-to-speed with what is "obvious". The PTO also pays it's evaluators poorly. I can get over 6 figures in the marketplace, but the PTO could only offer me 40K beacuse I don't have a masters (and then it'd be 50K or so, 60K for a pHd). How can we expect the evaluators to know what is obvious if (a) they arn't practitioners and (b) they are underpaid.
I'd rather have a "patent duty" like "jury duty" be put out for average developers... where they are paid at the prevaling wadge for ONE YEAR of service, after which they return to the market. Now, this would help prevent those big companies from patenting stupid stuff...
Parent
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:2, Funny)
Yes.
The consequences on the growth of the web will be disastrous if we don't take sensible steps like allowing patented technology into web standards.
FUCK the "growth of the web." I'm not willing to sell true, free, open standards down the river for some vaguely defined interpretation of "growth of the web."
The battle was lost a long time ago (Score:5, Interesting)
For reasons never disclosed to public, browser vendors didn't want to implement HTML 3.0. Except free browser projects, but their users were minority and the development resources were really small.
Then, one day, HTML 3.2 was revealed to the world. In terms of features it was a downgrade from HTML 3.0. In terms of sanity it had none, because it merely "standardised the current state," according to W3C. That explicitely excluded free browsers which implemented parts of HTML 3.0 and were going to implement more, but W3C never cared about them.
There never was a public discussion about HTML 3.2. After the publication the amount of flames from the free world on W3C lists was enormous. Unlike flames on Slashdot, where flamers rarely know anything about the subject of their flame, this was flaming from the people who knew everything about the subject. And it was going on for months. I don't think Slashdot flames ever managed to reach the level of revolt HTML 3.2 produced.
And now it's happening again. Surprised? You shouldn't be.
You see, W3C is a vendor consortium and vendor consortiums take care about interests of its members. That's why they exist.
Re:The battle was lost a long time ago (Score:3, Informative)
I was chair of the HTML Working Group (IETF) back then, and I was amazed how many people perceived Dave's labeling of that document to be gospel. His document never had any consensus behind it of any kind, and it was not widely implemented. He coded it in his prototype browser, and emacs-w3 implemented it of course, along with every other feature suggested by anyone.
BTW, HTML 3.0 was *not* an attempt to bring sanity to the demented browser implementations. Raggett's document predated the dementia.
After we finished the standardization of HTML 2.0 within the IETF, that Working Group was shut down, and I joined the W3C group, to help with the standardization of HTML 3.2. Yes, it was unfortunate that the effort moved into an organization which was open only to corporate members. However, there was a very substantial need to get the major browser vendors to agree on *something*, and that process was clearly just not going to happen in IETF meetings.
By this point, HTML 3.0 was old news. Not even Raggett was pushing it anymore. It was a nice doc, and way ahead of its time, but it should have been titled something a bit less pretentious.
It's not too late... (Score:5, Informative)
Obvious angles on it:
Re:It's not too late... (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents, in the final analysis, give the corporation power over the people.
That is simply absurd. The whole point of patents is to give people power over corporations. How do you think it's possible for an inventor to invent something without a big company just stealing it and "cutting out the middleman"?
This FUD about patents really needs to be brought under control. Patents are the friend of the little guy. Just because big entities have the same rights as little entities doesn't mean the rights are bad.
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
This is not at all surprising (Score:5, Informative)
First, in the W3C, membership is only offered to organizations. In the IETF, all individuals can participate in the Working Groups; any individual can generate a RFC.
Second, in the W3C, membership costs either $5000 or $50,000. IETF membership is free. It does cost money to attend an IETF meeting, but that cost is around $500; well within the reach of any serious developer.
Control of working groups in the IETF (and the IESG) is based on technical ability or desire. In theory, you don't really have to be a prior participant in the IETF to run a working group. (But it helps. A lot.) In the W3C, you must be a member (paying $5000 or $50,000), in order to run a WG.
In the IETF, decisions are made on rough consensus. In the W3C, decisions are also made based on consensus with elaborate procedural systems. It's interesting to compare and contrast the amount of procedural information on the W3C's web site versus the IETF's web site.
In general, all IETF working material is open and accessible to the public. You can read RFCs as they are being written; you can read, post, and comment on IETF mailing lists. W3C working material is not open to the public.
Companies may ask if the IETF is unfriendly towards business. I do not think this is the case. Look at Cisco. Cisco has certainly participated in the IETF; they are very involved in the development of several IETF standards. However, Cisco still has the ability to develop their own proprietary protocols and still has the ability to make secret agreements with other companies.
In short, membership in the W3C has always been primarily by businesses. In fact, there is no way for an individual to join the W3C. Anyone surprised by an extreme pro-business slant of the W3C is not really familiar with the W3C's nature.
[You might wonder why companies don't control the IETF as much as they control the W3C. My theory is that the W3C works on items much more relevant to the end user. A mass-market consumer is much more amazed by SVG than they are by packet switching. Companies have a strong interest in controlling what the mass-market consumer sees.]
(Refs: W3C Membership [w3.org], IETF Web site [ietf.org])
Then let us make the IETF the arbiters of the Web (Score:3, Interesting)
No one should be surprised by the change in patent information. Look at the membership structure of the W3C. We can compare it to the membership structure of the IETF, a group I think everyone would consider open and "free."
Indeed. One must also remember the shakiness of the control that the W3C has over Web standards - if Web developers and Browser developers choose to ignore the W3C then their leverage simply disappears.
Therefore, if the W3C does indeed allow this recommendation to become a standard, then I propose a solution:
Ignore them.
If Web and browser developers need to advance the state-of-the-art in Web technology, then do it through the IETF standards process rather than the W3C.
I do not like the idea of a balkanised web, where IE (following the W3C standards) must be treated differently to every other browser (following the hypothetical IETF standards), but, in a sense, this is what we already have on the Web, so there is no great loss.
If IE users find themselves unable to view... oooh, the 20% of the web that might follow these IETF standards, then Microsoft will soon change its tune, much as the push towards CSS-styled web sites has helped IE's CSS compliance. Who knows? In the meantime it could even be an excellent way of reducing the dominance of IE in the browser market.
So go ahead, W3C, make these changes in your patent policy. It will only spell the end of any control you have.
Re:This is not at all surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
True, IETF is very friendly towards business. To the point of letting patented stuff [sigmasoft.com] get into IETF standards.
copy of my comments (Score:2, Interesting)
Hello,
I've just read the Patent Policy WG FAQ and I have grave concerns about the
world wide web consortium pursuing this avenue.
The value of the W3C is dependent on the value of the standards it
promulgates. The value of those standards depends on their widest adoption by
the global internet community. Adoption by the internet community is
dependent on the ease and value of implementing those standards.
As a member of the internet community since 1984, I've seen a few standards
come and go.
As an inventor with a few patents, I know exactly what the value of patents
are. Companies and individuals do not go through the work of obtaining
patents because it is fun, or inexpensive. They do so with the intention of
profiting from them before they expire.
Allowing patented technologies to become w3c standards will benefit no one
except the patent holder. Having the internet community given the choice of
supporting w3c standards and paying license fees or developing non-patented
pseudo-standards will result in a plethora of divergent and redundant
standards in use. The value of the w3c will go into the toilet.
I urge you to disband the working group and abandon this policy from
consideration.
regards,
Dr. Andrew E. Mossberg,
Chief Technical Officer, Asoki Corporation
Chief Information Officer, CruisExcursions.com
President, Inicom, Inc.
Director, Fuzzy Theory LLC.
Totally OT, but (Score:5, Funny)
Kind of a fitting title (?)
Letter to www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets take a look at open source, shall we?
According to a Netcraft survey (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/) taken in July 2001, 60% of the internet's web servers STILL RUN APACHE. The reasons for this? It is fast, cheap, and secure. The reason it is all three of these is it is OPEN SOURCE. If the W3C began considering patented technology for standards, and incorporated those standards into core web systems (example: secure, uncopyable web page) then, if that technology uses some server-side component, Apache, the LONG TIME leader in web servers, would be LEFT OUT IN THE COLD and hence, discriminated against.
Granted, that may the whole point for this move - the authors are from some of the largest IT companies in the US - Microsoft (well, their IP law firm), Apple Computer, and HP. That's fine. It is also counter to the goals of the W3C.
(quoting from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/#goals)
"W3C's long term goals for the Web are:
1) Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, education, ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on all continents;
2) Semantic Web : To develop a software environment that permits each user to make the best use of the resources available on the Web;
3) Web of Trust : To guide the Web's development with careful consideration for the novel legal, commercial, and social issues raised by this technology."
So unless the W3C wants to become a hypocrisy and a joke, either this proposal has to go, or the original goals have to go. I'd hate to see the goals change. W3C has provided an amazing service to the web community, and if its goals change, I'm afraid that service would cease to exist.
Don't get me wrong - I am a small business owner and as a small business owner I understand the value of intellectual property as much as if not more than a large company. If my business model is based on my IP, then with it I make money, without it, I fall into the (if I'm not mistaken) 95% of companies that close their doors within the first five years of existence. HOWEVER, I don't think that STANDARDS should be based on patented technologies unless the patent owner freely licenses it to anyone who uses the standard.
ADDENDUM (Score:2)
Sixtey percent of HOSTNAMES that provide an http service that they polled used Apache, not necessarily 60% of the physical number of SERVERS.
This does not change my argument in the slightest.
my note (Score:2)
Just fired this off, feel feel to copy:
My message to www-patentpolicy-comment (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately I didn't see Alan's reply before writing up mine, he surely has some points I should have included.
Anyway:
I believe the adaption of possibly non-royalty-free standards by W3C would
be a fatal mistake. Please take the time to consider the implications:
Right now, projects like Konqueror, Mozilla, Lynx, Links and even your own Amaya are doing a pretty good job - but they can't continue if they have to pay to implement the next set of standards.
If you have been on the net long enough, you will have noticed that all attempts to create a similar infrastructure based on closed "standards" have ultimately failed (e.g. Europe Online) or turned to open standards, basically becoming an ISP and an internet portal (AOL,
Compuserve, MSN)
The problem becomes much bigger once someone starts charging royalties for something that is even a w3c standard (imagine some company finding
a reason for charging royalties on the a href= html tag).
I can understand the reasoning behind allowing RAND; yet I think it will cause far more trouble than it's worth.
Please reconsider.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. (Score:3, Informative)
It is not like there is a lack of innovation here.
Why fix something that's not broken? Money should not be the focus of the W3C... bringing the market to maturity and ensuring competition (and thus innovation) should be its goal.
Patents are wisely justified under the U.S. Constitution to "Promote the Sciences and Useful Arts" and are not justified under any sort of natural-rights or right to compensation logic. One must ask if the patent process is indeed satisfying its goal. If not, then institutions such as the W3C should not be rushing to support the implementation of restrictive mechanisms that are not needed.
Trial by Jury of Peers? (Score:2)
Don't post here - send them an email instead! (Score:4, Interesting)
There were only 7 comments archived in August and merely 9 in the month of September... until yesterday! Way to go guys! (I have to assume that Slashdotters helped pummel them with comments.)
You can see everyone's comments here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentp
Last time I looked there were 250+ comments! Fortunately, most of them were opposed to incorporating patented technology into W3C recommendations.
Re: sending your comments to W3C (Score:4, Informative)
For those of you not familiar with how W3C works: W3C puts documents out for public comment, announces them, and is obliged to respond to questions and critiques. This document was no different; in fact, not only was the document announced on the W3C Homepage six weeks ago, the WG produced both a FAQ and backgrounder, and the announcement was carried on a variety of syndication services which rely on RSS feeds.
As many of you may have missed the August announcement of the draft, I include the links here for your reference. I would ask that you consider reading these documents as "item 0" in Adam's "What you can do" list.
Announcement: archived with date at http://www.w3.org/News/2001
FAQ: http://www.w3.org/2001/08/16-PP-FAQ
Backgrounder: http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews
W3C Patent Policy Framework: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-200108
For more information on how W3C works in general, I invite you to read the W3C Process Document:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/
As of now, many comments sent to W3C's Patent Policy Comment list simply say, "Don't!" By responding in this manner, writers give the Working Group nothing on which to build a constructive response or to consider. Should you decide to comment, I suggest here what you can do to help W3C make the most of your comments, and help it be in a position to act on them:
1. Read the draft itself. (You may find the FAQ and backgrounder useful.)
2. Provide your comments directed at specific sections of the draft with which you object.
3. Ask questions where you find the language of the draft itself unclear.
4. If you make philosophical objections, please base them, at least in part, on your reading of the draft.
W3C welcomes all comments - critical and otherwise - on its documents. I would say though, that the preference is for substantiated comments. This type of comment leads to action; at the very least, they demand consideration on behalf of the Working Group, as well as a thoughtful response.
Best regards,
Janet Daly
Head of Communications, W3C
Parent
I've sent my comment. Have you? (Score:2)
We can sit here and talk about it all day, or we can do something...
-jerdenn
Embedded designers speak out! (Score:2)
I see this crap every day of work: I cannot turn around without stumbling over a patent license that prevents me from supporting a standard. I work in the land mobile radio market. Look at the big player in this market: Motorola. They own most of the patents on the standards, and so they can pretty much prevent any competitor from gaining a foothold in the market. If you want to have a system that works correctly, you buy Motorola repeaters, Motorola consoles, Motorola mobiles, and Motorola test equipment. Try to integrate a Racal, E.F. Johnson, or Kenwood system, and all the places Big M violated the published standard break everything.
Open standards aren't just a good idea, they are the ONLY WAY to make a system that everybody can play in.
Here we go again. (Score:2, Insightful)
IETF IP policy (Score:2, Interesting)
standards are also encumbered by patents. See http://www.ietf.org/ipr [ietf.org]
Some patent holder grant the rough equivalent of
RF licenses, others RAND licenses. Only the latter
is a requirement according to RFC 2026.
One interesting difference, however, is that one
needs at least two independent, interoperable
implementations, both of which have to have exercised the licensing policy, to advance a document from Proposed to Draft Standard stage.
(For reasons unrelated to IPR issues, most recent
IETF RFCs are Proposed Standards, not Draft
Standards.)
Even current standards are not safe! (Score:4, Interesting)
Section 5.3 of the policy provides for the possibility of re-chartering an existing Working Group under a new Licensing Mode (i.e., given that no-one would have an incentive to change it the other way, re-chartering an RF Working Group as a RAND Working Group.)
The Patent Advisory Group (the drafters of the new policy) can initiate this process and (albeit after approval from the Director), all the members get thrown out and have to be re-nominated, and *licensing commitments made by Working Group members under the older charter are void.*
In other words, if the e.g. CSS Working Group were dissolved and reconsituted in this way, companies could start charging licensing fees for the patents they hold on current CSS standards - either under RAND, or (worse) by withdrawing from the process completely and licensing under discriminatory terms.
Who has CSS patents, and who would they like to discriminate against?
Gerv
Why the short notice? (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I believe we should raise bloody hell. We can't afford to have the standards for the Web become closed and proprietary. I know of no way patents can be enforced without also closing the source of implementations. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that basic software technology is owned as "property".
The well of ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
just to undo his first. Now he had one more wish remaining and
he was determined to do it right this time. He was now determined
to do something for others instead of for himself. He saw the
suffering in his desert town. There was only one well in the
town, and it was frequently drying up, or so everyone was told by
the old man who owned it. The old man charged a handsome price
to drink from the well; only on the days it was flowing.
"I wish
sure he did not make yet another mistake, for he had no fourth
wish with which to correct any mistake. "I wish for a well which
shall flow abundantly at all times, and provide water for all the
people, and cannot be owned by anyone, or taxed or otherwise held
for any ransom."
The genie acknowledged his wish and promptly vanished, never to be
seen again. Now he wondered if he would have what he wished for
as he emerged from his small tent to find a noise near the center
of town. So he went to see what this was.
When he arrived at the center of town, he saw before him a sight
never had anyone seen in any desert town before. Right in the
center of town there was a might gusher of water springing forth.
So much water that it was flowing down one of the streets and went
flowing out into the desert for a mile before drying up.
No one had known that it was Ahmed who had wished for this. Even
he was unsure that it was his wish that had brought such a bounty.
He told no one. Surely they would not believe him anyway. But
his real desire was for his town to prosper and be happy, and so
it was. And so, Ahmed was happy.
For 10 years the well did flow. Night and day it did flow. The
trade routes across the desert changed over the years to come by
way of the town. The people had built a great trough to make it
so a thousand camels could drink from the water at the same time.
No one had even seen a hundred camels at one time before the day
the great well sprang up. Now there were hundreds of traders and
thousands of camels. The more that drank from the well, the more
it gushed forth.
No one paid for any water, but the people of the town became rich
anyway, because so much trade came by that everything else was
being bought and sold. The town prospered greatly, and even Ahmed
had become richer than his very first wish had made him.
Why was the old man digging a new well? He had toiled on it for
two years, he and his six sons and twenty grandsons. They already
had one well that flowed only some, and now another? But water
did come from his new well regularly, but only one bucket at a
time as before. Why was he doing this, Ahmed wondered.
Another year had passed and not only was the town prospering, but
even nearby towns which had no magic wells were also prospering
just because the trade routes were larger than they ever had been.
Ahmed travelled to see the wonders of his magic well and how it
had affected all the people in so many towns. There was plenty
of trade through all the land, and so many new things to be traded
that even Ahmed could not have imagined to wish for had he even a
thousand wishes.
Ahmed had travelled for almost a year in his land and was now
returning home to his town which was now thirty times larger than
it was many years before. He looked forward to sleeping again in
his house, which had replaced his small tent. But as he arrived
home, he saw what he could not yet imagine.
A long line of people had formed in front of the well the old man
and his family had dug up. He was bring up water from his well,
and charging more for this water than he had ever charged before.
And the people were paying for it. Ahmed came to one man in the
line and ask why? The man said "I must drink, and here is the
place for water."
"What of the great magic well?" Ahmed asked, careful to not say he
had wished for one that would flow forever. "Is it not flowing?"
"It is" the man in line said, "but it is poison".
Terrified, Ahmed rushed into the center of town only to see the
well still gushing forth, but no one drinking of it, nor anyone
watering their camels, nor filling their flasks. Walls had been
built up around it. As Ahmed approach the well to check the water
someone recognized him and came to him and warned him. "Over a
thousand people have died after you left." he said. "The poison
is slight, but if you drink more than one drink every two days it
will cause you a horrible sickness, and if you continue, you will
surely die, as did my wife and half of my children."
"How did this happen?" Ahmed demanded to know. "The old man who
has the other wells, it must be he who has done this." came the
terrifying answer. "He came to the well one day with a small
golden chalice and filled it, then poured it back in and laughed."
The man continued, "that day two thousand became sick, and the
next day three hundred people and three thousand camels died."
As the years went on, the great well did continue to flow. It did
not stop, not even in the greatest of droughts and famines. The
old man now had three wells from which he sold water, and owned
almost all the land in and around the town. No one was allowed to
dig new wells. Most of the traders stopped coming. Few people
remained in the town. The riches had come to an end, except for
one family. The old man now had three wells and they flowed as
well as any well normally did. His business was brisk, and it
made him and his family rich. He was even richer than he was in
the time of the great well. But no one else was.
But soon the town dwindled to just a few people. The old man had
passed away, and most of his family moved on to other towns in the
land. Two of his sons stayed, but without the traders coming in
such numbers as during the great well, even they were no longer
prospering.
Ahmed was thirsty, and grabbed two coins and went down to the well
still run by the old man's two sons. "One drink" he asked, as he
held out his hand offering the two coins. "Sorry, the well is not
flowing today. Come back tomorrow and bring four coins." Ahmed
wondered if maybe he should just take one drink from the magic
well. But he knew he could not do that as often as he needed to
drink.
And Ahmed soon moved away to another town, not wanting to even see
the great well anymore, for it was such an ugly sight.
Today, the ideas of the thousands are the great well of bounty
that flows into our technological economy. We all prosper from
such a well, but no one prospers above the others. It is shared
and we all prosper equally in our own way. Those who would want
to change things so the well flows only for them would seek to
stop the well from flowing. Since they cannot stop it, the best
they can do is poison it. Everyone prospers when everyone shares
in that prosperity. Poison the well of ideas, and the prosperity
only comes to those who have the poison. But even their level of
prosperity, while more than the others, will diminish.
So many patents do not serve to advance ideas, but only serve to
corner markets. Most patents do not bring water to the well, but
only poison it.
Technology runs at such a pace the patent office can no longer do
the things it needs to do. The patent office just leaves it up to
the courts to decide which is valid and which is not, so they will
just issue all but the most obviously duplications. Few ever get
taken to court because the cost of doing that is so high. Patents
may be intended to advance the science and the arts, but today
they are not doing this at a level anywhere near what should be
expected from the number issued. One of the greatest advances we
have seen in the last several years, the internet, has advanced
the science and the arts with virtually no patents at all.
Unpoisoned ideas are what makes us all prosper, and when we all
share in that prosperity, then it is the greatest prosperity.
Re:Just another brick from the wall (Score:2)
under this paradigm, a new frontier requires an entirly new technology.
I don't see it yet, unless it is something like th computerization of telepathy and the Aklashic records [joke!]
Re:But they are problems (Score:2)
The WWW userbase is 1000x bigger than that (at least), and if the GIF licencing thing was really a huge problem (even BBS land), somebody could have easily whipped up an open replacement. I saw the discussions back on the BBSes, and the conclusion was "Nah, we'll just have our vendors pay the fees."
Re:W3C becoming irrelevant (Score:2, Funny)
<W3C LOGIC>
Individual developers and researchers don't create technology, only large companies with fat R&D budgets can do that.
If something is in a W3C standard, then it must have been created by a company with a fat R&D budget.
All W3C standards were GIVEN to the public by benevolent cooperative corporations who just want everything to work together seamlessly.
Where the hell do slashdotters get off complaining about the consortium members trying to protect the technology that they invested so much $ in?
Slashdotters are a bunch of freeloaders who don't want to pay for anything, ever.
Al Gore invented the Internet.
</W3C LOGIC>
Re:Not a mandatory change (Score:3, Informative)
That's not true - see section 5.3. Any current working group can be disbanded and converted to a RAND licensing policy; when it is, all previous licenses given by the members are null and void.
Disband CSS, put it under RAND and boom! No more Mozilla/Konqueror, and Opera Software pay through the nose.
Gerv