W3C Revises Patent Royalty Policy 70
Jeff Heaton writes: "Looks like W3C is backing down on allowing companies to charge royalties for technologies that are incorporated into a W3C standard. In a controversial proposal made public last fall, the consortium debated whether to allow companies to charge royalty fees if their technologies are used in a standard." The new draft is online.
Excuse for companies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuse for companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question now for the W3C (and any other SDO for that matters) is: what do they want their standards/recommendations to be?
Do they target wide adoption and compliance? Do they care about the development of the medium? Do they want to allow the possibility of occasionaly creating de facto monopolies and cash cows for people who manage to tie their intellectual property rights to some standard? Do they have enough confidence in the strengh and credibility of their organization to take a strong stance regarding IPR issues?
It's not an easy decision for the W3C, it is even harder for SDOs like the ISO, the ITU or others that rely on their members contribution (for standard development and financial contributions).
As a side note, the whole issue of patents on software is far from settled in many jurisdictions. W3C standards have an international appeal and there is a huge liability issue regarding the non enforceability of such patents on a worldwide basic. This issue can't be looked at with an american law background only.
Re:Excuse for companies? (Score:1)
Having ones IPR included in a standard is a given monopoly. Traditionnaly, people who contributed to the standardisation process by giving away code and ideas considered that the expertise and the head start they had with the technology was a sufficient way to recover the costs of developing the technology. There was also the fact that the standardisation process tended to be a very collaborative one but is moving more and more toward a lobying effort to push one specific existing tech forward.
Nowadays, especially with the copyright and patent hysteria surronding software in the US and elsewhere, organisations feel their creations should be on a (short) chain and bullet for ever.
I guess they think they can make more money this way. In the short term, they are probably right.
In the long term however, if SDOs are becoming a rubber stamp on proprietary technology, they will start losing their usefulness: if a major market player can impose it's own technology, why bother with SDOs at all? You don't see MS trying to get the Office file format defined as a standard anywhere. They could not care less.
SDOs are big slow heavy boats, but they do have a very usefull role.
However, in my opinion, they will fail if their role changes to that of a marketing tool or a simple certification label.
So RAND might be good in the short run. Some organisation might even try to encourage IPR encumbered recommendations and standards. it might encourage companies to get their products out to the world. Might be very good indeed for everyone.
But there is also a need for free collaborative standards.
It will be interesting to see what the W3C chooses.
Hand in the Cookie Jar (Score:2, Funny)
a large number of issues raised by comments from W3C Members and the general public.
That is so much more polite than "We got caught and got our ass reamed.
The Gardener
So true (Score:2, Insightful)
And just when I though complaining about something wouldn't do any good...
[END HUMOR]
Re:So true (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty often, really. But only when it's based on fear, ignorance, or spite. When the public outcry is based on a rational reason, it almost never gets heard. Probably because so many people don't take the time to think rationally, preferring to simply accept whatever is spoon-fed them by [RIAA|MPAA|Government|etc.] right up until it nails them personally.
Pretty much everyone, however, has an emotional response to inflammatory rhetoric. Just look at how people respond on everyone's favorite site whenever some sort of pro-[Windows|MS|Proprietary software|etc.] comment gets posted.
Re:Toll booth web? (Score:3, Informative)
Ignore my previous post (Score:2)
Destandardise (Score:2)
Actually they have a very effective method if they choose to use it, they destandardise the technology.
Re:Toll booth web? (Score:2)
Not quite yet... (Score:4, Informative)
The draft is not the final say on the matter. A "last call" draft will be published later this year, at which point the public and W3C members will submit comments. A final decision from the director of the W3C is hoped for by the end of the year, said W3C spokeswoman Janet Daly.
So there is at least a year before it's totaly dead and gone and it may even come back if the members push it enough or somebody does. Thusly this is a victory but the battle isnt over yet.
Re:Not quite yet... (Score:2)
huh, they have said enough. (Score:2)
The terms used are still vauge, and what the first condition means is NOT DEFINED:
A Royalty-Free license shall mean a non-assignable, non-sublicensable license to make, have made, use, have used, sell, have sold, offer to sell, import, and distribute and dispose of implementations of the Recommendation that:
1. shall be available to all implementers of the specification worldwide, whether or not they are W3C Members;
That and other conditions leave lots of room for abuse. Would a no cost add-in to Micro$haft's Visual $tudio count as available? Might they standardize MP3 because it is "available" to all? Availability is not always usable, especially if the tools of use are in some way encumbered. It does me little good if I can unencode something if I can't turn around and create content.
The Patent Policy Working Group believes that the RF license as proposed is compatible with all major Open Source licenses except the GPL. We are still working on GPL-related issues.
They have a lot of work to do and I'd like to see what "Open Source" support they have besides their belief system. The crux of their thinking is this:
A claim is necessarily infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the required portions of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing alternative shall be judged based on the state-of-the-art at the time the specification becomes a Recommendation.
There is always an alternative! If there is not, the law and patent process is broken. Laws and standards should bend towards morals rather than morals and standards bend toward broken laws. W3C should not lend it's support to broken laws.
Re:huh, they have said enough. (Score:2)
Bruce
A sign (Score:1)
One can only hope...
Re:A sign (Score:1)
More Karma whoring, and so little time.
D
Re:A sign (Score:1)
Look at Intel.
more details, background (Score:3, Informative)
I wrote a story at xmlhack [xmlhack.com] on the new draft this morning. It's got some extra details and links to background information. The exception handling process looks like it'll be the area to watch [oreillynet.com].
Re:more details, background (Score:2)
Huh??? (Score:3, Insightful)
The consortium cannot tell a company whether it can charge fees for its technology. I think what they meant was that the Consortium will not accept a technology as a standard if there are fees involved. That's a bit different.
Re:Huh??? (Score:2)
Re:Huh??? (Score:2, Informative)
the marque tag will still work right?!?? (Score:2, Funny)
Here we go again... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Additionally, you can see what the Slashdot community had to say about it then in this [slashdot.org] article posting!!!
Have fun...and I guess I'll see you all back here in about a month or so for the next revision...
Good Grief. (Score:1)
Not entirely... (Score:3, Informative)
Patents should live outside of standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patents should live outside of standards (Score:1)
The W3C doesn't Create Standards!!! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:The W3C doesn't Create Standards!!! (Score:1)
Good (Score:1)
org9
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
So for MPEG4.. (Score:1)
Re:So for MPEG4.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So for MPEG4.. (Score:1)
MPEG is not a W3C activity (Score:1)
MPEG is an ISO activity, not a W3C one. As far as I can tell, ISO (International Organization for Standardization, not an acronym, www.iso.ch [www.iso.ch]) doesn't have a patent policy a sfar as I am aware.
Since I work at W3C, and since this is public information, I can tell you that no, the W3C has never wanted to publish specifications (recommendations) that are encumbered by patents or royalties. However, we don't have any authority over the MPEG committee.
(I am Liam Quin, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin [w3.org]; I am in the XML activity and not directly involved in the patent policy group, so send comments about that to the public list not to me.)
By charging for standards.. (Score:2)
What would happen if WC3 started charging? People would develop their own technologies, or use wc3 "illegally". People being MS, Mozilla, Konqueror, Lynx, a small group of develoeprs...
Free Software Representatives on the Policy Board (Score:5, Informative)
We don't get everything we want, but we've done pretty well.
Bruce
Re:Free Software Representatives on the Policy Boa (Score:2)
Bruce
tech that's only available for a fee (Score:2)
Might I humbly suggest that in that case they sit on their ass doing nothing. Or twiddle their thumbs. Or stick their thumbs up their butt. Prefferably all three at once.
-
Excluded! (Score:2)
Invited experts are not entitled to participate in the PAG [Patent Advisory Group]
If I read it right, when they want to use RAND they create a PAG to discuss the issue, and everyone who is anti-RAND is going to be excluded from participation!
Am I hallucinating, or is "Exception Handling" just a fancy name for Railroading-RAND-Around-Objections?
-
instructions embedded in the film (Score:1)
No, they absolutely must not. Devices i own in my home will do what i say and nothing else. They will answer to me and only me. I've had enough of this with DVD (They can decide what you can fast-forward through for gods sake). Any system that relies on this is completely flawed and anyone who designs it is a fool. I don't know why people allowed DVD to get away with this but the general public sure as hell better not let anything else like this through. It goes against the entire Open Source philosophy.
Threats against the president (Score:1)
(slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28127&cid=3023341