W3C Considers Royalty-Bound Patents In Web Standards 224
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.
Good! (Score:1, Offtopic)
called Corporation. The only company...
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.
Pot, kettle, black... (Score:2)
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)
What does Alan mean vis-a-vis SVG patents? (Score:2)
Could someone elaborate on what Alan Cox is talking about here? Is the current SVG standard encumbered by patents? Is it about to be? How? Considering how long this standard has been promoted as an open solution to the mishmash of proprietary vector graphics solutions, this would be a tragedy and an insult.
Actually, no, it apparently IS... (Score:2)
Re:What does Alan mean vis-a-vis SVG patents? (Score:2)
I have not purchased anything from Apple, IBM, Quark, et. al. for years. This kind of slimy behaviour only strengthens my resolve to continue my boycott.
Are the methods covered by these patents essential to a working SVG implementation? Can their cancerous inclusion be eradicated without killing the patient?
Linux Today, perhaps? (Score:2)
At any rate, Slashdot's not the only source of breaking news (it's about 30-40% there for that these days) and neither is Linux Today. You've got to mine the 'net and everywhere else for info- and then spread critical/important details as far and wide as you possibly can. (Of note is the 11th's events- the regular web news sites collapsed under load and
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.
FTC is examining patent standards problem (Score:2)
The story was in the September 10 USA Today [usatoday.com], and September 11 Wall Street Journal [wsj.com]. I searched, but don't find a Slashdot story about it.
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.
I agree 100% but THEN don't PUSH (Score:2)
As to why Linux on the desktop is not popular I disagree with you. I don't think the whole package matters at all, or PRICE, it is WORD, EXCEL, and GAMES that keep home users tied to M$.
Most people NEED/REQUIRE interoperability with work, which for MOST people entails MS Office. The second driving computer force is GAMES, maybe the first, hom many kids talked their parents into a computer so they could do homework or Dad could do Work, just to actually get DIABLO
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.
Re:But why? (Score:2)
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.
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:1)
Proove it.
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
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:2)
Fsck that. Patent it yourself.
Then charge Jack Valenti, Hilary Rosen, and the other pigs that run mass media $1,000,000 per use of the tag as a royalty.
If their fucking content is so fucking precious, they oughta beg to pay you for the right to protect it like a masochist begs for the whip. You'll make billions.
And if you get the patent and they don't cough up the dough, sue 'em into the stone age. Obliterate the fscking RIAA and MPAA in a trillion-dollar lawsuit, and the world'll still be a better place.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:2)
It is obvious to anyone who is skilled in the art of network and security programming that you would have to set up a server that would authenticate with the browser to ensure that the browser supported a protection flag, and then send the document containing the flag. It is also obvious that the browser would have to disable any functionality that would allow digital copying of said content upon reciving a document with that flag (or tag or whatever). It is also obvious that the technology could be implemneted as a plugin to existing browsers.
Since I can pull all of that out of my ass, and it's here for everyone to see, it is unpatentable... unless such a technique for copy protecting web sites or similar network distributed documents is already patented. Even then I would argue that it's still obvious, but the case would be less clear cut...
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.
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:1)
That's ture, but not the point here.
The point it that I still can build a computer with radio tubes if I wanted to.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense, especially when talking about software patents.
XML started being a hot subject, say, 4 years ago? And today there are thousands of lines of non-patent-encumbered code out there for people to build on -- the shared body of knowledge grows every year, not every 17 years after patents expire.
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
I'm assuming that's not just a troll, but what possible web related precedent can you give for thinking that? In particular, are you claiming that various innovations won't happen without patent protection, or that patented innovations will happen and that web standards will be the poorer without them?
Please check out this study [researchoninnovation.org] for some interesting reading. I invite you to find contrasting views that aren't filled with corporate rhetoric.
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:1)
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...
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."
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:2)
Absolutely! Recouping research costs is a must. But this needs to be limited to actual research done for creations that are actually new, unique, and non-obvious. Way too many of the patents issued by an overworked and apparently incompetent USPTO is actually hampering business. Research now runs a high risk that the results may result in threats or litigation from other patents that don't even meet the requirements to be issued a patent.
The fact that there are valid patents, as you hold up one for a transistor, does not mean that all others are equally valid. The vast majority did not promote technology. If issuance of patents were limited, as they should be, to true advances in technology, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Web standards and internet standards did amazingly well without using technology that was encumbered by patents to get us to the point we are today. If the very beginnings of the web were built upon patent encumbered technology, we would not be having this discussion, because there would be no slashdot.org and there would be no web. The reason for this is because there would have been no free/open source development of the web to make it happen. What we might have instead would be 2 or 3 proprietary online providers who would be charging high prices for access and even higher prices to place content. There would be no peer to peer communication at all except through those central providers. And in that world we'd would be sitting there thinking we are so advanced. But the true advances come when tens of thousands of great minds work on the technology, not a few corporations.
I'm not opposed to the patent system, or even software patents. I'm simply opposed to those which are obvious, and would have been done very soon by someone else anyway. The majority of patents are things that thousands would have, or could have if asked to, solved on their own. Some corporation doing "a little inventing before the need" to ensure they get the patent is not advancing the state of the art, but just their own profits. That hurts the rest of business.
Re:This is a step FORWARD (Score:2)
Transistors are an implementation detail! Nowhere in information interchange standards, will you ever see that a computer is required to use transistors.
If businesses want to use patents to recoup their investments, either as part of their implementation of standards, or as part of their fully proprietary non-interoperable products, that's fine. But it shouldn't ever be required by a so-called standard.
Do we want to hold back web standards by two decades due to foolish lack of aversion to patents? Part of the reason that web browsers haven't advanced much in the last 7 years, is that we've had too much monopoly -- the "big two" browsers. Occasionally better browsers would appear, but unless they spoofed, server-side scripts would detect them and tell their users that they need to downgrade to Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer. Patents will only make that worse and reduce the size of the playing field even further. There's no better way to kill innovation, than to tell people that they are legally prohibited from doing something. And that's exactly what a patent does.
There are better examples. (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think those two are a very good example of patent problems. They are not really problems at all.
You can use them and licens them in that case, thats the costs of using other peoples work (the work involved in reseaching&developing them). Otherwise you can develop your own formats. You are perfectly free to chose.
The real big problems is obvious patents, and even worse to broad patents. Those really are huge problems and will get even worse.
You don't happen to implement gif by accident but there are horribly broad patents out there locking up whole categories of software/businessmodels.
But they are problems (Score:1)
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:But they are problems (Score:2)
An article on "LZW Data Compression" was published in the October 1989 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal (see the Bibliography section for more details). A reader replied in the December issue explaining that the algorithm was patented. The author of the article added that he was unaware of any patent on the algorithm. More readers wrote, and in the March 1990 issue the editor-in-chief dedicated his Editorial to this topic, which in his words "sparked a forest of fires". The same issue also contained an official statement by Unisys Corporation, which confirmed that LZW was patented, mentioned the modem industry, and indicated how developers could contact Unisys. . (Article goes on to aledge that Unisys either was unaware or ignored the GIF issue, because they hadn't developed a formal uniform licence fee for such uses.)
It's not often that one can find evidence to back up once personal memories, but let me assure you the BBS community was aware of these issues. I also recall that Adobe announced that they had obtained a licence from Unisys at about this period. This was long before any WWW browser included GIF support.
1994 marks when the offical GIF pricesheet emerged, and the PNG project started (your ref). The fact this took 4 years backs up my point.
Cox would have more impact without the hyperbole (Score:1, Insightful)
First off, I actually agree with a lot of what he said in his statement. However, I think he would have had a lot better chance of getting the point across if he hadn't invoked the specter of evil corporatization, and maybe left the Microsoft bashing out.
There are many valid points he could have made without sounding so reactionary. Must have been taking lessons from RMS, yeesh.
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.
Just another brick from the wall (Score:1)
The Internet was a frontier, and now it's being settled. So you know what that means? Find a new frontier!
I mean, once they start making movies like "Hackers", you have to know that it's over =)
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!]
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)
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
Patents serve only to tip the scales to the party with the most money/lawyers.
That's certainly the conventional (Slashdot) belief, but it's frankly not true. Patent attorneys will often work on a contingency basis if you have a real case. Prove it to me: Show me a patent that was filed by a little guy that was "smashed" by a big guy.
I can easily show the opposite. Heck, let's look at the Stac lawsuit against Microsoft [base.com]. They won $120M lawsuit against MS, and they we're a tiny company.
Corporate interests own hundreds of thousands (millions?) of patents. What do you think they own them for?
They own them because they invented something first. What difference does it make how big an entity is if they invent something novel? I repeat: Big interests have the same rights as small interests. Personally, I don't think someone should lose rights just because they get larger.
Now, software patents are a different deal, because we've had a lot of abuses of the system by trying to patent prior art. But that's a problem with how patents are granted, not patents themselves.
(And here is my opportunity to be controversial): The only reason many Slashdotters are against patents is because they want to steal other people's ideas, not because they are worried about corporations stealing the little guy's ideas.
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
I was not implying that "little guys" who can actually afford the patent process are smashed by big companies. I'm talking about huge [ibm.com] companies [canon.com] who can afford to build up patent war chests [ibm.com] in order to intimidate competition from entering the market.
Not to mention the various [ascrs.org] groups of patents [i-sis.org] that have the capacity to hurt real people [cbsnews.com].
Sure, bad patents [bustpatents.com] can be overturned one at a time, but this often requires lots of money and lawyers too.
(And here is my opportunity to be controversial): The only reason many Slashdotters are against patents is because they want to steal other people's ideas, not because they are worried about corporations stealing the little guy's ideas.
Not really controversial--this is the standard corporate party line. Actually, many of us belive that ideas cannot be owned [usewisdom.com], and thus cannot be stolen. It's no surprise our corporate government doesn't share this viewpoint.
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
that have the capacity to hurt real people [AIDS drug patents]
It's so ironic that people complain about AIDS drug patents, when the drugs wouldn't exist at all without the ability to patent them. Patents are possibly the single greatest single saver of lives in the history of mankind. You simply could not spend billions of dollars to develop 1 successful drug and 100 failures if Joe's Drugs down the street could simply copy your research and cut out your ability to make a profit. People really need to look at the big picture, rather than these simplistic, emotional views.
Actually, many of us belive that ideas cannot be owned [usewisdom.com],
I know. It's a very naive and dangerous viewpoint.
and thus cannot be stolen. It's no surprise our corporate government doesn't share this viewpoint.
Ah yes, the old "corporate government" argument. If something is good for business, then it must be automatically bad for everyone "else" (as if everyone is not affected by what is good or bad for business).
Well guess what: It's not just "big money" that cares about this issue. There are a lot of us who can look at the big picture. The fact is that it takes a big company and big money to develop many types of inventions. If there was no protection, then those inventions simply would not be invented, because there is no seed money to develop them.
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
Er, yes you could. It's called government funded research. Which, incidentally, is what produced the Internet - and what underwrote much of the basic and long-term research that many corporations profit from today.
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
Er, yes you could. It's called government funded research. Which, incidentally, is what produced the Internet...
No, that's what produced the Arpanet. The Internet that we know today, meaning the investment and development of high speed lines, is a product of private enterprise.
and what underwrote much of the basic and long-term research that many corporations profit from today.
Certainly we have a body of research that was created from public investment. It's not a question of whether you can get research from public investment, it's a question of efficiency. For example, no one doubts that the government could produce a "universal automobile" to compete with the major car companies. However, no one also doubts (that is sane, that is) that it would be a huge space-station-style, unbelievable disaster.
Research works the same way. Most of research feeding at the public trough is absolute crap designed to 1) line the pockets of the researcher, and 2) secure their reputation. There is a simple reason for this: public research has very little incentive to actually produce anything useful, like research in, say, a drug company.
All this said, I think there is a place for government funded research. There is a lot of very long term research that won't get done very well privately, like basic physics research. It's still inefficient, but it's better than nothing.
Both public and private research funding have their place. Public research is better for long-term basic research, and private research is better for actually producing practical results, efficiently.
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
Too many slashdotters, have the silly attitude that "the man" is trying to put them down. How utterly crazy, considerring that most of these guys make more money than ordinary Americans like you and I could ever think about.
I find the idea that patents give corporations power over "the masses" as laughable as you do. If you look on the patent data bases you will find that about 4 out of 5 patents (85%) are owned by individuals and small "garage" companies. Only 10% of the patents are owned by companies with over 100 employees.
Thanks for going against the flow of slashdot and being honest. Even though it might hurt your karma, it is far better to speak up for truth!
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
You're the one who's crazy. Do you think that Ballmer says to himself, "Oh, I've made enough money to last a lifetime, I'll let Microsoft tank now - no need to worry about small upstarts cutting into our profits". No. CEOs always want to make more money, however much they've already made. If they get all Kumbaya-ish they'll be deposed by the shareholders.
Re:It's not too late... (Score:2)
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.
I notice you don't distinguish between moronic software patents and rather more innovative non-software patents. However, even quite innovative software ideas are dubious candidates for patenting. The idea of a spreadsheet wasn't patented, and as a result we have many free and cheap spreadsheet applications, and competition encourages innovation (although the situation is not so rosy now with the increased dominance of Office). If there was only one spreadsheet company for 20 years, we'd have to like it or lump it (including their legalised monopoly pricing).
The answer to the innovation argument is simple (at least in the software arena). Companies already fund research which they expect their competitors to be able to capitalise on. (Haven't you ever heard of patent cross-licensing agreements? Now how can you argue this isn't ganging up on the little guy?) Where no company is willing to do research, the government can do it - if it's that important.
And by the way, no-one has a moral right to make a profit via a government-mandated artificial monopoly. The idea that copying someone's idea is depriving them of their "rightful" profits is nonsense. No-one has a right to unlimited profits.
Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users (Score:1, Redundant)
common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its
interoperability"
A lofty and great goal. A pity that the W3C now proposes to throw away its
very reason for existence.
And now we have a new much abused patent politics buzzword
"Non-discriminatory"
Indeed.
I think the W3C should ask itself how allowing parties to use patents to
prevent community projects for blind access is "non-discriminatory".
Tim Berners Lee created an innovative environment about sharing and
referencing data. You plan to give large companies the power to stifle
that innovation.
It says something for the sad state of W3C that the proposal in question
has been allowed to progress, carefully arranged not to be visible to
the outside world. The dates of the short consultation period do not even
appear to have been adjusted in the light of September 11th. The proposed
shortening of the consultation period also appears to violate the W3C
rules, but then I am sure you don't care. I can smell the rot from here.
A patent-encumbered web threatens the very freedom of intellectual debate,
allowing only large companies and big media houses to present information
in certain ways. Imagine where the web would be now if only large companies
were able to use image files.
And large companies it is. I note the distinct lack of small companies on
the proposal in question. Within the ISO where the same things happen the
money simply moves in circles between big players. Accountants and lawyers
pay $100,000 sums back and forth as part of an accounting game that they
use to keep out smaller players.
I think we can also be sure that the kind of W3C members working this
little agenda have plans. I would bet on "Windows digitally-protected
uncopyable web pages" being one of them. Of course the protection they
really mean is "against reading by non IE users".
The W3C must ask itself whether it plans to continue the vision of Tim or
become another ITU, a bloated dinosaur that exists more as a corporate United
Nations of communication than a standards body.
If the W3C wishes to remain relevant to the people, to the small businesses
(the other 80%) and to the future of the web then I strongly suggest that it
Requires non-disclosed patents are freely licensed for use in that standard for all.
Without this a key infrastructure standard may suddenely be "owned" by a W3C
member who intentionally kept quiet to gain "non discriminatory" - but large -
license fees. The current wording encourages patent abuse. Licensing on a
RAND basis would only be appropriate for such a non-disclosed patent if
existing RAND licenses were on that proposal before final consultantion.
Regardless of the rest of the outcome all honest members will benefit from
such a stricter policy on non-disclosure of patents.
Does not "approve" or "recommend" or allow its logo to be used on any patent-encumbered item.
To do so will tarnish the value and reputation of the W3C name and logo. It
will also create confusion about what W3C standards indicate.
Restricts its activities on patent-encumbered projects to providing a forum where such people can work on patent encumbered projects to be released under their own names only.
Here its activities would be in a consultative role, helping to guide these
bodies in areas of overall standards compliance and interpretation of W3C
goals. It is possible to further the web standardisation goal without
becoming part of those activities that are contrary to the original goals
of the W3C.
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. It may even be appropriate for SVG work to be
transferred to the ITU.
Finally we should all remember this. When patented W3C standards ensure
there is only one web browser in the world, its owners will no longer
have time for the W3C or standards.
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:Then let us make the IETF the arbiters of the W (Score:2)
Of course I have little or no understanding of the copyright issues involved in this case. Would this be possible?
Re:Then let us make the IETF the arbiters of the W (Score:2)
It would not take all that long for existing open web standards to be adopted under the IETF, or at least another group functioning like the IETF if IETF doesn't want to take on the web standards. Either way, I'm sure there will be lots of volunteers to do the work.
The well (of open standards) is not going to dry up, even though most businesses are drinking from the well (even while some are trying to dig their own). Too bad a few come along and try to poison the open well, perhaps to get those businesses who drink from the open well to go drink from a pay well.
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.
My letter to comment@openphd.net (Score:1)
As a professional software developer making a living from being able to
develop platform-agnostic applications for the web, I am extremely alarmed to
see the W3C's proposed stance on patents & standards. With the proposed
changes in place the web will become more and more a showcase for large
corporations and will extinguish the independence and innovation that have
made the internet freely accessibly to anyone with a web browser (of any
flavour) and a dial-up account.
Indeed, with the proposals in place the web risks becoming a tool of a few
corporations (I think I don't need to list them specifically) and innovation
will largely be shut down. After a while, the W3C itself will cease to be
relevant, and I can hardly believe that is what is intended.
I urge you, therefore, to reject these proposals and show your organisation to
be one of integrity to the ideals of Tim Berners-Lee et al; be proud that you
are not just another tool of big business.
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.
ha ha (Score:1, Funny)
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.
Does this suprise anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
I echo this sentiment! (Score:2)
Above all,
1) Keep your post rational and coherent- no flames please.
2) If you don't have some partially formulated argument of the forms that have been moderated up on here or use the link to archives to get ideas on the good ones- don't be overly verbose and keep to the point.
3) Try to avoid undue Microsoft or corporation bashing. Some have said Alan Cox' letter had too much hyperbole- read closer, it's actually part of his arguments and fits with the reasoning (Realize that over 2/3 of the comittee that formulated this proposal are from big corporate interests such as Apple, Microsoft and HP.). Having said this, much of the best arguments in this vein have been said already and unless you can come up with better ones, I'd avoid it because it will seem like hyperbole or ranting.
4) Try to spell-check things! Some of the stuff is embarassingly mis-spelled in some of the letters.
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
Re: sending your comments to W3C (Score:2)
Janet's comment is perhaps best attributed to the LinuxToday forum, where it's gotten several more replies. Several were even cross posted to the W3C comments list:
It's been pointed out that most of the comments say substantially more than the "Don't" which Janet mischaracterizes them to be. And also that the short-circuiting of the W3C process in this case is atypical and suspicious, particularly when combined with the way notice for this fundamental change was slipped under everyone's radar.
Re:Don't post here - send them an email instead! (Score:2)
August 2001: 7 comments
September 2001: 755 comments
October 2001: 330 comments - and it's only 10/2/01.
Keep those cards and letters coming!
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.)
My response .... (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, GIF should not be a recognized standard, because of the encumbrances by Unisys. The PNG standard is a much better choice because it does not base itself on one company's technology and can be adopted by all. The software used to create a patent can be trademarked, copyrighted, etc., in the author's mannter of choosing, but it does not restrict the file format itself. The PNG format will never undergo the kinds of hassles various authors of GIF-related programs due to Unisys entanglements.
A consequence of recognizing patented technology is that the W3C runs a severe risk of appearing biased in favor of one company's standard. This will open the W3C up to lawsuits by those whose technologies failed to make the standard. Even the argument of technological superiority would not hold up in court because there is no way to empirically prove that one technology is better than another for all applications.
Thank you,
signature follows, etc. etc.
Keep the comments to the W3C coming gang! (Score:2)
Remember:
1) Keep the stuff to clean, coherent comments- no flames or ranting. They won't listen to either.
2) Focus on the issue that any royalty structure is, by it's very nature discrimintory, and that they contradict themselves in the proposal several times.
3) Focus on the issue that a substantial part of the Internet is powered by open source software that will be unable to pursue implementing things because of the licensing issues.
4) Remind them that they exist for the purposes of ensuring that the WWW doesn't become balkanized- which this would do.
5) Spell-check things if at all possible- there's some embarassingly mis-spelled stuff sent in by some important figures.
Fundamental problems of the draft (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, errors in the definition of an Essential Claim leave many, many loopholes. An example: If some patented technology is included in the later stage of a Recommendation, a patent owner can, in full compliance with the W3C procedures, obtain a patent without the need to disclose it. And that's not the only error. Basically, the patent holder decides which patents to reveal and which to hold back, and W3C cannot do anything about it. This makes most of the draft meaningless.
My submission was wirtten hastily, so it's probably full of typos,strange thoughts and lack of facts, but if you are interested nevertheless, it's available at: http://www.s.netic.de/fw/w3c-patent-policy-2001-09 -30.pdf [netic.de]
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
Re:Even current standards are not safe! (Score:2, Insightful)
As it stands right now, any company could come up with a 'torpedo' patent and lay claim to CSS or HTML or SVG. In fact one company has already "patented" the combination of W3C XForms and W3C XML signatures. When this happens, everyone looses.
At least with a written policy, no company can claim ignorance.
A new and improved W3C: W4SG (Score:2)
HTML 3.0 and MathML are but two examples of how the corporate nature of the W3C has led to the delay and/or abandonment of sound technical proposals.
If you are interested in charting a new path for the web join the World Wide Web Standards Group (W4SG) [uwaterloo.ca].
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".
public comment ... (Score:2, Funny)
Mr Prosser said: "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions
or protests at the appropriate time you know."
"Appropriate time?" hooted Arthur. "Appropriate time? The first I
knew about it was when a workman arrived at my home yesterday. I
asked him if he'd come to clean the windows and he said no he'd
come to demolish the house. He didn't tell me straight away of
course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me
a fiver. Then he told me."
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning
office for the last nine month."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see
them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your
way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually
telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find
them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom
of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a
sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
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.
translating W3C-speak (Score:2, Insightful)
For those who don't want to dig through the whole W3C proposal, here
is their basic justification for this idea. In the spirit of Noam
Chomsky, I have attempted to translate what they are really saying. I
think the agenda is pretty clear.
<w3c> The sine qua non of the Web revolution is the open standards
environment on which the Web is built and continues to grow. The
Web's open technical standards have developed through the open,
collaborative process created by the World Wide Web Consortium. As
Web technology has become more commercially critical and the impact
of software and business process patents are felt more strongly in
the Web development arena, W3C believes it is necessary to adopt a
more comprehensive policy and process for addressing the
relationship between the open technical Recommendations developed
by W3C and patent rights held by both W3C Members and others.
</w3c>
<translation> "sine qua non" means "something absolutely indispensable
or essential." (source: www.m-w.com) But the W3C can, in just two
more paragraphs, show us that this revolution is now over and the
new standards will be "nil sine numine" (nothing without the divine
will). We know who the divine are and it's not you and me.
</translation>
<w3c> 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. At the same time, many Members invest significant
research effort in the development of their own intellectual
property portfolios, so are concerned about protecting and
benefiting from proprietary technology they have developed or
acquired.
</w3c>
<translation> Michele Herman (Microsoft), Scott Peterson (HP),
Tony Piotrwoski (Philips) and Helene Plotka Workman (Apple) and
others who form the W3C can't work together on an open standard
because they really would rather patent the technology. In fact,
sometimes one of them even stabs the others in the back at the last
minute by saying "Thank you for helping us develop this standard
and for helping us promote it. Now guess what. We've got it
patented! Ha Ha Ha!"
What they want to do is get each other to agree ahead-of-time that
this or that standard is going to be patented. They'll probably
take turns deciding which company gets to own the patent. To
justify this, they say, it's expensive to do this research.
I'm sure research like this is expensive, but if expensive research
is worth it, the market will accept it and make it a defacto
standard. If the research is patented the research has to be even
more valuable to the public or it won't be accepted as a
standard. But no argument is given to the effect that we will get
more or better research done if that research comes with the
blessing of the W3C. They just want to get paid for the research
they are doing. That's not objectionable, but trying to get paid by
hijacking a previously open standards body has the ugly smell of a
meat packer bribing the USDA.
</translation>
<w3c> In developing a new patent policy for W3C Activities, our goal
is to affirm the Web community's longstanding preference for
Recommendations that can be implemented on a royalty-free (RF)
basis. Where that is not possible, the new policy will provide a
framework to assure maximum possible openness based on reasonable,
non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing terms.
</w3c>
<translation> When our large coporate partners give the signal, we
will march in step, salute, and endorse a patented technology as
part of a standard.
</translation>
<w3c> The second decade of the Web has already demonstrated that
patents will be a factor in the ongoing development of the World
Wide Web infrastructure. A variety of factors suggest that the Web
will be increasingly affected by the patent process. The Patent
Policy Working Group (PPWG) has identified the following
significant factors:
Convergence: The Web had its origins in the personal computer
software industry, where patents had seldom been a factor in
development dynamics. However, as the Web comes into contact with
the telecommunications, broadcast media and consumer electronics
industries, the tradition of patenting technology from those
industries will likely be carried over to the Web. Rise in patent
issuance: Patent offices, led by the U.S. PTO, are issuing patents,
especially in the software sector, at record rates. Experience of
Internet-related standards bodies: A number of standards bodies
including W3C, IETF, the WAP Forum, and others, have encountered
potential barriers to acceptance of standards because of licensing
requirements perceived as onerous. Popularity of business method
patents: Beginning with the State Street decision in the United
States and continuing through high-profile litigation between
Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com, business method patents have
become increasingly significant factor in the ecommerce
marketplace. These factors make it clear that the W3C must have a
clear and effective policy to address the inevitable increase in
patent issues that will come before individual Working Groups and
the Membership as a whole. </w3c>
<translation>
Beyond the traditional software companies, lots of other big media companies also want patents.
Developers don't accept standards that have LARGE patent fees
associated with them. (We'll try to give them ones that have
smaller fees)
Wow, there are lots of software patents being issued - some of them
are really idiotic. This is a gold mine we don't want to miss out
on.
It's funny. None of this is a logical argument for their
position. They are simply stating what is going on the
industry. Companies like to patent.
</translation>
<w3c> Importance of interoperability for core infrastructure, lower
down the stack: Preservation of interoperability and global
consensus on core Web infrastructure is of critical importance. So
it is especially important that the Recommendations covering
lower-layer infrastructure be implementable on an RF
basis. Recommendations addressing higher-level services toward the
application layer may have a higher tolerance for RAND terms.
Better disclosure: A clear process, to which Members are committed
and/or bound to ensure better disclosure of essential patents as a
condition of Membership, is vital. Access for general public (not
just Members): Licensing terms for essential technology should be
available on a non-discriminatory basis to W3C Members and
non-Members alike. Working Group flexibility: One patent licensing
framework may not be appropriate to every W3C Working
Group. Therefore, Working Groups should have flexibility to specify
minimum licensing terms as part of their work. These intellectual
property rights requirements should then become the basis for
Advisory Committee and Director review of the resulting
specification.
</w3c>
<translation> These vague and unenforceable guidelines will protect
the process from getting out of hand.
Our member companies won't screw each other by keeping silent about
their patent intentions until the end.
We'll let the public comment, but we can ignore what they say.
Each working group can rewrite the rules whenever they want.
</translation>
The W3C is sowing the seeds of their own destruction. What we are
likely to get are lots patents of not all that great commercial
appeal. If a company has an idea for a patent with lots of commercial
appeal, they won't put it in the W3C which might restrict the royalty
fee they can charge. If something is truly revolutionary, it will
follow normal patent routes. The market will decide. If something is
less than truly revolutionary, these companies will try to get the W3C
to endorse it and hope that that will fool people into using it. Then
they'll spring the royalty fees on us.
Then we'll all hate the W3C and it will become a large rotting useless
body. The web will "mature" like other technolgies where innovation
happens as often as it did in Europe during the middle ages.
Richard Stallman Posts (Score:2, Informative)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:51:42 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200110010551.XAA04108@aztec.santafe.edu>
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Subject: W3C patent policy
If the World-Wide Web is indeed to remain "world-wide", it must not
depend on restricted standards. The W3C cannot prevent others from
developing or using restricted standards, but it should not lend its
name to them.
Therefore, the W3C should adopt a policy that all important standards
must have free patent licenses (and thus allow free software).
Perhaps there are some standards for specialized kinds of
business-to-business communication which are sufficiently unimportant
that it may not be disastrous if they are patented. These standards
do not really deserve the term "world-wide", but they may still be
worth the W3C's attention. But standards that really are of
world-wide importance must be free.
The "back-door RAND" problem pointed out by Adam Warner is especially
crucial. When the W3C decides that a certain standard ought to be
patent-free, no circumstances should be allowed to annul that
decision.
Aside from these substantive changes in policy, the W3C should also
stop using the term "reasonable and non-discriminatory", because that
term white-washes a class of licenses that are normally neither
reasonable nor non-discriminatory. It is true that they do not
discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate
against the free software community, and that makes them unreasonable.
I suggest the term "uniform fee only", or UFO for short, as a replacement for
"reasonable and non-discriminatory".
Waitaminnit... (Score:2)
I want to know who the smart cookie was who came up with that! It's kinda brilliant.
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:W3C becoming irrelevant (Score:2)
Kind of, if you learn about and work around all the horrible browser bugs that constitute "de facto" HTML.
> W3C specs even surpass the most obscure RFCs in
> their obtrusity.
That is true, but the specs for HTML and CSS (for example) are specifying something that is necessarily a lot more complicated than stuff usually dealt with in RFCs.
> W3C specs are usually playing catch-up with
> existing technologies.
In some places yes, in some places no. There lots of cool things in (say) CSS and SVG that haven't been widely implemented yet.
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