Last Call For Comments On W3C Patent Policy

Holger Blasum writes: "The W3C is closing its last call for comments on its future patent policy (with disputed RAND: "reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing") on 30 Sept 2001. One of the authors of the framework argues this to be not uncommon (and, in fact, RFC 2036's section 10.3.3 has it too). As it is common practice, the W3C has set up an archived mailing list ([e-mail]) for comments. Adam Warner has outlined (mirror) some possible consequences for th e SVG standard."

Huh?

[waldoj]

To be fair, I haven't clicked on any links yet, but based on the abstract, I don't know what the hell this story is about.

-1 Vague

:)

-Waldo

ACK, for the impatient

[Holger Blasum]

the entry at linuxtoday.com [linuxtoday.com] is clearer.

A Better Abstract

[CritterNYC]

They are trying to gather comments on how they should deal with patents in relation to web standards. When patents should be mentioned by those involved in crafting standards, licensing terms, etc. The best quote from the abstract: "The root of the challenge posed by patents in any standards arena is that participants in a standards body will be unwilling and unable to work collaboratively if, at the end of the process, the jointly-developed standard can only be implemented by meeting licensing terms that are unduly burdensome, unknown at the beginning or even the end of the design process, or considered unreasonable." It sounds like they are trying to prevent a Rambus-like mess from happening within web standards.

Making sense of this issue

[Adam_Warner_NZ]

I am pleased that Slashdot has finally posted a comment about this issue. I am disappointed that my Saturday submission to Slashdot was discarded, that time is now running out and the issue now appears so obtuse.

http://www.openphd.net/W3C_Patent_Policy/draft.xht ml [openphd.net]

This new Slashdot submission tells us to see this this link (written by Scott Peterson of HP):

http://www.aful.org/pipermail/patents/2001-August/ 002341.html [aful.org]

---Quote---
That a particular path has been chosen before is not itself of great help in judging the appropriateness of taking that path in some other situation -- the different context may make the choice less appropriate, or, indeed, the prior choice may have been a poor one.

The primary value that I see in noting the prior use of RAND-based policies is that it may be helpful to look to what the experience has been where that choice has been made. I believe that there are significant context differences that must be considered, so I am skeptical about simple extrapolation from that past experience. However, I think that one's analysis could be more complete by considering this history.
---End Quote---

I sincerely hope this doesn't mean Scott Peterson of HP is trying to tell us royalty-free standards may no longer be appropriate for the WWW. They have served us so well.

You should visit the W3C Backgrounder and FAQ that are also cited by me. It helps this Slashdot submission make sense:

http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews [w3.org]

http://www.w3.org/2001/08/16-PP-FAQ.html [w3.org]

"RAND means that someone may or may not need to pay a fee, and that it is at the discretion of the license holder."

So yes we are talking about the prospect of future fee-based W3C WWW standards.

RAND also envisages the prospect of licensing audits:

RAND "may include reasonable, customary terms relating to operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as the following: audit (when relevant to fees), choice of law, and dispute resolution."

As part of the theoretical underpinning of this new policy we are also told: "On the other hand, there are other technologies, typically higher level, where it might be appropriate to accept fee-bearing requirements in a Recommendation. It is worth restating that, as of today, W3C is not aware of any fee-based license required for any of its Recommendations. Thus, there is an established history of RF [Royalty Free]."

So again the W3C are telling us that it "might be appropriate to accept fee-bearing requirements in a Recommendation."

If you think Scott Peterson has convinced you see this recent post to the W3C Patent Policy archive:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpoli cy-comment/2001Sep/0011.html [w3.org]

In particular "It is true that some standards bodies operate successfully under RAND rules, and that some standards requiring licensing have been adopted without apparently serious damage. However, this has happened mostly in cases, such as consumer electronics or semiconductor manufacture, where a few large companies with enormous capital investments make essentially all of the products. In such a situation, patent licensing does not greatly increase the already large barriers to entry. This does not describe the environment in which W3C recommendations are used; in software, patent licensing costs (including administrative costs) may frequently exceed all other costs involved in developing a product."

Readers may be interested to know that I was approached by LinuxToday to put the document I wrote in full on their Web Site:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09 -30-001-20-NW-CY [linuxtoday.com]

I didn't even need to submit it to them. By Slashdot initially ignoring my submission I think they did a disservice to their readers. This is an important issue for the future development of the World Wide Web.

Regards,
Adam Warner