W3C Considers Royalty-Bound Patents In Web Standards

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.

Totally OT, but

[shaunak]

RAND, in Hindi means 'Prostitute'.
Kind of a fitting title (?)

ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

<philb:#slashdot> the idea of boycotting an organisation that thousands of web developers ignore every day is quite funny

Re:This is a step FORWARD

[flacco]

do we want to hold back web standards by two decades to satisfy our irrational aversion to patents?

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:Totally OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

rand() means a random number in c

Re:W3C becoming irrelevant

[dlaur]

Let's try to imagine the point of view of the W3C corporate members:

<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:Totally OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says?

My implementation is

int rand(void)
{
return(1);
}

public comment ...

[jsebrech]

I think Douglas Adams described this "public comment" period best in "The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy":

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."