Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

HP, Apple Drop Support for Royalties on Web Standards 199

Posted by michael from the peer-pressure-works dept.
Medeii writes: "This article on CNET states that Apple and HP have both decided to withdraw their support for the recommendation. Both companies issued statements supporting the development of royalty-free web standards. Both were, interestingly, also authors of the current recommendation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP, Apple Drop Support for Royalties on Web Standards More

HP, Apple Drop Support for Royalties on Web Standards

Comments Filter:

  • Good for them (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mr. Punch ( 58068 )
    I wonder what happened to make them change their minds. Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.

    Interesting.

    • Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dinotrac ( 18304 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:49PM (#2422558) Journal
      Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.

      Sometimes they do, but I doubt that's the case here, not that it matters.

      I have no doubt that a careful re-examination of the issue should have made them realize that each has more to lose than to gain with RAND standards.

      First, it's impossible to devise a non-discriminatory standard that imposes a royalty fee. The receiver of the royalties always has the advantage.

      Second, such a system, by favoring the biggest players (as they are the ones likely to finagle the largest number of such standards), it would favor the status quo. Not so bad if you're Microsoft or IBM or even Sun. Less wonderful if you're HP or Apple.
      • If you have the capability for collecting royalties for standards, then you have the great capability for Microsoft to patent Active-X and use it to further their monopoly-- bear in mind that economy of scale is steep in the software industry and Magrosoft has an overwhelming control for the internet browser market.

        Anyone remember Craig Mundi's statements at OSCON concerning patents and Microsoft's willingness to use them agains open source projects? Now imagine if those patents were part of the W3C standards!

    • Re:Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.

      Nor are individuals.

    • Re:Good for them (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheAwfulTruth ( 325623 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @07:15PM (#2422612) Homepage
      No, they don't. Ever. HP and Apple obviously think that this change of heart will benefit them. I don't know how it will or won't. But I can assure you that was the only reason for making the descision. Sometimes "People will like us more and maybe buy more X from us" is the reason. Sometimes "It will make us money in royalties" is the reason. Whatever it is, it is always made with what seems to be the best interest of the company at the time. If it happens to be the right thing then they look good, if not, they look evil. But BEING good or evil is NEVER a reason for a company to make a descision. Those traits are thrust upon them by outside watchers.

      • Re:Good for them (Score:2, Interesting)

        by martyn s ( 444964 )
        Whether it happens on a conscious level or not is open for debate, but that's how people operate too. Whether it's evolution or whatever, the only reason people might do something good is that it will benefit them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not machiavellian or anything, and I don't use this as the guiding principle of my actions. I do something good because I think it's the right thing to do. But as an afterthought, I know that the only reason I thought that action was good was because it would help me. That's why you try to return a favor to someone who's nice. And both parties will often each get more than they gave. If my rambling was even remotely interesting to you read about Game Theory here [springer.de].
        • Not to be too off topic here but-- how do you define good anyway? Is not good action that which helps us ALL prosper? Are we not all better off if we help out our community? I am not entirely sure about you but I do "good action" because I see the benefit to helping build a strong community.

          So too with corporations. Many do good actions because they know that they make their money by filling a need which exists and hence providing real benefit to their customers and giving back some money to their community. Of course some, particularly those with market power, twist this idea into one resembling a drug dealer who knows that he can create the dependency of others on his products...

          The W3C exists to build the web development community as a community. In other words, they exist to do good, by my definition above. Sometimes they make mistakes, as does any organization, but I feel that their overall mission is one that needs to be supported. This is just a good example of the process working.
      • But I can assure you that was the only reason for making the descision

        Or perhaps not everyone in the company knew what was up initially. Just another possibilty.

        But BEING good or evil is NEVER a reason for a company to make a descision.

        This is pretty extreme.

        A lot of companies are not this bad. In my opinion, this includes Apple. Apple makes mistakes (and generally repents), but it also sometimes does something just because it's right, as subjective as that can be. I believe a major contributing factor here is that many journalists prefer controversey, so that's what people hear more of.

        Companies are run by humans. The fact the people have different philoshopies and priorities is reflected in their respective organizations.

        - Scott

    • Re:Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Phroggy ( 441 )
      I wonder what happened to make them change their minds. Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.

      Apple is trying to change what they are known for. Five years ago, they were known for having a proprietary operating system that ran on proprietary hardware. Three years ago they got rid of the proprietary hardware, and now they've got an open-source OS. There's still a proprietary GUI on top of the OS, but there's a pretty open feel to parts of it. Storing preferences in XML. Bundling Apache and OpenSSH. I compiled WindowMaker!
    • i think their benifit are twofold:
      1- they look good to their supporters (hp has supporters?? oh well so much for that theory)
      2- they wont have to deal with the complexities of tracking patents, ip, copyrights, etc... or having to wrestle with other people as to who owns what?
      overall it will make it simpler for themm (who toute themselves as more hardware companies so they can build their hardware and use free standards...
    • Corporations aren't known for doing the right thing.. becuase it's illegal for them to do so. No, really, it is.

      You see, public corporations have a duty to protect the interests of their shareholders. They cannot do something because it's 'right'. IF wha they are doing is legal, and profitable, they cannot go and STOP doing it just because it's not 'right'.
      THat's the problem.
      • That's a common myth around here, but it is largely untrue. What about the early corporate participants in the the South African boycott?
    • I wonder what happened to make them change their minds. Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.

      Interesting.

      Indeed.

      In this situation "THE RIGHT THING" and what would provide them with the best competitive advantage happily coincided. After all, MS is several years into developing royalty technology. Do HP and Apple really want to compete in a royalty environment with MS having a headstart on development?

      I think they thought about it and realized that they would only be feeding the beast by supporting royalty based standards. After all, MS has the most to gain from this. It's a simple mob tactic.

      After all, MS is taxing the OEM hardware/software, software vendor, business software and business OS/hardware markets. The next logical step in their racket is to try and get a stranglehold on the internet.

      Simple mob tactic. Identify opportunity. Enter market. Destroy competition, tax everybody you do business with, and make sure to box competitors out of the market, one way or the other.

  • Well, what a nice surprise. (Score:3, Funny)

    by DragonPup ( 302885 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:32PM (#2422505)
    Whatever their real reasons for withdrawing support, I have a feeling that the backlash a lot of people on /. expressed helped change their minds.

    -Henry

    • Re:Well, what a nice surprise. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:51PM (#2422561)
      It could also be that elements within the companies that "get it" weren't aware of this until the controversy arose, and managed to change the minds of the greedy bastards responsible. Corporations aren't just one big hive kind, you know.
    • Thinking that a small group of fanatical social outcasts can affect any change whatsoever on these large corporations is flawed logic at its best.

      Just like every other major decision by a corporation, this was motivated by their own self-interests, not someone else's.

      • Someone's got doom-and-gloom clouding their eyes. The fanatical social outcasts of such causes as feminism and animal rights appear to do a damn good job forcing their views on both corporations and society in general.
      • yes, but it's usually these social outcast extremists who voive their opions the loudest... and if enough of us start shouting and no one else contradicts us, people upstairs might actually think we are right *smirk*
    • Whatever their real reasons for withdrawing support, I have a feeling that the backlash a lot of people on /. expressed helped change their minds.

      No, that had very little to do with it. Here on Slashdot you're preaching to the choir. You're going to have absolutely zip, none, nada, no effect on anybody's policy unless you get off your ass, get outside Slashdot, and communicate in the forum's where it matters. In this case, the main effects were caused by people who posted to the W3C's patentpolicy-comment list.

      Don't get the idea that sitting on Slashdot and bleating actually does anything other than make you feel better. Come back here and tell us what you've done.

  • Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:32PM (#2422506) Homepage
    Of course, the good question is... Will this be a case where Apple and HP drop support publically and the issue dissapears (And then quietly reappears 6 months later in a different form) or the case where Apple and HP drop support publically and it just goes on as if nothing happened (Like Adobe's dropping support of suing for Acrobat-Crackers) ;)
  • Considering the push-back when this was proposed, perhaps the two groups paid attention and are trying not to piss off those that can make an impact.

  • What about Quicktime? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I thought Apple wanted Quicktime to become the web standard for video. Apple is now deciding that it won't happen, unless they plan to relicense the Sorenson codec as free to use for all?
    • Apple doesnt own Sorenson, it isnt theirs to relicense
    • What makes them (Apple) think that they'll win the video format standard battle? I think Microsoft has more clout.

      No matter. I'm just thanking my lucky stars. Hopefully, the next video (streaming or otherwise) standards isn't bogged down by blind copyright protection schemes or crippling mechanisms
      • Quicktime is the first, the oldest, the most developed, and by far the best video architecture around (although the default codecs aren't the best, and the software implementations of the standard sometimes have bugs). Its ability to handle many different types of data is unparalelled - it's almost an operating system unto its own. That's why they picked it as the basis of the MPEG 4 standard. Now if only they'd come out with a linux version.
        • Now if only they'd come out with a linux version.

          There are Linux apps that can play QuickTime movies. Have been for a long time. The problem is, the Sorenson codec is proprietary, and without that, what good is QuickTime to most people?

          • Re:Because it's the best (Score:3, Informative)

            by gig ( 78408 )

            QuickTime is the most complete multimedia there is, which is why MPEG-4 is based on it. Real has a server and a player, and Microsoft has a server, a player, and an OS monopoly, but QuickTime is in cameras, audio apps, music apps, Web authoring apps, animation tools, DVD authoring tools, DV editors, and open source streaming servers on every major platform. It supports almost every image, video, and audio format in existence, along with animated images and Flash movies. It has a built-in software synth with DLS. For $29 you can author with QuickTime Player Pro just by cutting and pasting and exporting. QuickTime is one of the major reasons why creative people use Macs. While Microsoft was trying to get their developers to support a GUI, Apple had their developers integrating their apps with QuickTime, so you can move media back and forth between apps as files or with the clipboard and get great results.

            Almost every video you can find on the Web was in QuickTime format at some point in it's life. There aren't any other vendors with this kind of technology. It may be possible to do digital video without Apple, but it's not something you'd do by choice.

            If you want to run QuickTime on Linux, here's how.

            Crossover Brings QuickTime to Linux [oreillynet.com]

            Guys ... file the QuickTime-on-Linux stuff away with the one-button mouse crap and the entire phrase "proprietary hardware". You're only hurting yourselves by regurgitating all the Microsoft FUD we are forced to swallow every day. Shit it out, instead. Go to an Apple Store and touch some of this stuff. Apple is firing on all cylinders right now, and it's something to see. You can make movies and DVD's with drag and drop on a stable UNIX with ridiculous graphics and media support. It's outstanding. You could share one of these computers with your grandmother and both be happy.

    • Not quite. Apple is a heavy backer of (and contributer to) the MPEG-4 standard.

  • Its all about who the customers are... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Whyte Wolf ( 149388 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:37PM (#2422522) Homepage
    The backlash we saw here on /. and elsewhere against the RAND recommendation fromt he W3C, and the subsequent response from HP and Apple says something quite significant--I think-- about who the real customers of web technology are.

    Apple and HPs move are PR motivated, and it looks like they were motivated by the response from their 'real' web cutomers -- the web developers and web designers who work with HTML and W3C 'standards' every day.

    I find it interesting to note that Microsoft has yet to say anything about the backlash or its current position. Like always I suspect they hold their customers, and developers in nothing less than utter contempt.

    • Is this a joke? Someone moderated it as funny, and that's the only way I can imagine this as a +5 comment. Microsoft holds their developers in nothing less than utter contempt? You're kidding, right?

  • Big Bad Borg.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:37PM (#2422525) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like both Apple and HP looked at how many standards Microsoft was going to own, and came to their senses.

    Either that, or the constant barrage of hostile emails had an effect.

    If I had to bet, I'd bet on the former, not the latter....

  • Definately a Surprise (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheLOTR ( 526987 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:37PM (#2422529)
    This definately comes as a surprise given the direction that HP has taken as of late. Many of the people I have known who work there consider Carly's main interest to be profit, and EVERYTHING else comes second. The idea that HP would push a royalty-free system is a wonderful surprise.

    • Re:Definately a Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by firewort ( 180062 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:42PM (#2422547)
      Carly must have realized that you can't make profits when paying fees to use everyone else's patents!

      I'm pleased that Apple chose this route as a customer, and dissapointed that IBM hasn't, as an employee. Not surprised, just disappointed.

    • Re:Definately a Surprise (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Many of the people I have known who work there consider Carly's main interest to be profit, and EVERYTHING else comes second."

      So you're saying she's a CEO? well no shit. Find me a CEO that isn't interested in profit first, and I'll show you a CEO who is gonna be on the street.

  • No way. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:38PM (#2422531) Homepage
    Some major companies have enough trouble conforming to free web standards as it is and break and make their own standards. Creating standards that require royalties to use will just make companies do things their own way even more.

  • What patents do these guys have, anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LoveMe2Times ( 416048 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:38PM (#2422535) Homepage Journal
    Can anybody clue me in on what relevant patents HP or Apple has, anyway? Did they stand to benefit, or did they just all of a sudden go, "Hello! These might mean that we would have to pay out the nose too!" and make an abrupt about face? If HP and Apple aren't sitting on patents that might cover current or future web standards, who is? The article mentions that they collaborated with M$ for the original proposal, and I presume that they're sitting on more patents than we'd really like to think about. How does adoption of this proposal relate to the possibility of .Net becoming a web standard (if at all)?
    • Apple would sure gain a lot more from QuickTime being the official standard. HP probably has some printing-oriented stuff.

    • With Apple setting the standards, we would all have an Internet that looks like translucent blue candy.
      • in a funny way, Apple have ALWAYS had a big influence on web standards simply because so many web designers are working on the Mac. Funnily enough, MS' IE for the Mac was awarded for its good compliance - if only the PC version could boast likewise...
        • Microsoft's Mac products are made by a separate unit in Silicon Valley ... not in Redmond. IE:mac (as it's called) has a rendering engine of its own called Tazman that's as compliant as Gecko, and the browser uses JavaScript, plug-ins, and Java. The interface is Mac OS X -style, even in the Mac OS 9 version. If you are ever cursing at IE Windows for shitty rendering, just remember that Bill Gates owns a super-standards-compliant rendering engine already.

          Many Mac users have come to think of the Microsoft Mac Business Unit ("Mactopia") as a separate company that builds Microsoft-compatible products for the Mac. Of course, no company could ever do that without being owned by Microsoft, but you ignore that illegal distortion of the free market and focus on the products, you are happy to have the option to become "Office-compatible" (for a publisher, say) without having to run Windows.

          I think Apple has plenty of patents. They have always done a lot of research. FireWire is pretty famous lately. Mac OS X is full of cutting-edge technology. MPEG-4 is QuickTime, basically. Since Apple bought NeXT they have been firmly on a path to open standards, in every software and hardware component. Even the BIOS-equivalent in their machines is a stardard that Sun also uses. Choosing NeXT over BeOS was symbolic of this. I think Steve Jobs has confidence in Apple's ability to survive on a level playing field. Where Microsoft is doing everything it can to control the very Internet, Apple gave up a lot of control of their whole core OS in order to be interoperable. Apple is free to innovate at a much higher level, with FireWire, DVD authoring, ease of use, graphics, audio, etc. In 6-12 months there will be such a difference between a Mac and everything else for creative applications ... Aqua apps have access to BSD, Cocoa, Carbon, Java2, QuickTime, CoreAudio (32-bit float, unlimited channels), CoreMIDI (1ms latency routing, mLAN support), FireWire, USB, PDF, a PostScript interpreter, AppleScript (user-level recordable interaction between GUI apps), Quartz, object-oriented dynamic drivers, UNIX (true multiuser with POSIX permissions), Unicode, XML, much more. People are building apps right now on Mac OS X that just can't be built anywhere else ... very few of the apps that you actually go out and buy Macs just to run are ported yet (Pro Tools, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro). Those apps are going to work so well on Mac OS X that it will have people's jaws dropping. The DVD Player application in 10.1 is already doing that, with its performance and high-quality and amazing multitasking ... it's just the first of many apps to bring that kind of quality and stability and multitasking to all corners of digital media creation.
    • For one, Apple has a number of patents relating to the SVG standard. While not strictly necessary for implementation, these patents left the standard in a position where some OSS advocates were advocating forking the standard to route around the threat. It's good to see Apple make it clear which Web they want, and that that future is the more inclusive one.

      [SVG is a vector image format used by Nautilus, and probably a number of other applications I'm not aware of.]
    • For one, Apple has a patent on alpha blending, which is part of anti-aliasing algorithms and so forth. I suspect that Apple would actually rather not try to enforce this patent against users of standard like SVG, since it's a somewhat flismy patent, essentially being z=ax+(1-a)y, which is both simple math (from probability, e.g.) and also is essentially how colored plastic works.
    • Can anybody clue me in on what relevant patents HP or Apple has, anyway?

      I believe they have a patent on the trash can icon.
  • So they converted to jpg from gif?

    Good for them!
    • Speaking of GIF, does anybody know if it is legal to use GIF in our web pages? Today I came across an article that said GIF is a proprietary format of some company and anybody who wants to use GIF-encoded graphics in their web page must pay this company $5000 or face lawsuit? I appreciate any information concerning the current state of this issue.

  • Vertigo! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Snafoo ( 38566 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:44PM (#2422550) Homepage
    So.... Apple's main OS du jour has an OSS core, HP and Apple openly combat Free Software's foes, and IBM (despite helping pen the recent W3 recommendation) dances around waving our flag like a teenybopper at a cheerleading competition.

    Is anyone else feeling a certain sense of vertigo, here? :) I mean, this is *Apple* we're talking about. Christ, remember the boycott? And IB-smegging-M. Have I stumbled into +Better Than Life or something? This reality's state has surely become inconsistent. I expect the whole thing to segfault at any moment.
    • I think that we're just seeing the results of the creation of strange matter [bbc.co.uk]. :-)

      The strangeness is leaking into the rest of the world.
    • That's the new Apple, man. Standards everywhere. Even if you have to see it to believe it, once you see it you won't believe it (you get me?). They can match acronyms and buzzwords and standards with anybody out there. A lot of people who would never have used a Mac a few years ago are buying iBooks now and enjoying all the Mac GUI and apps coming along with their UNIX, for a very low cost. You can install an X-Windows app and get your hands all dirty, and then run it side-by-side with an app that you "installed" by dragging one "fat" file to wherever you wanted and opening it. Apple are really simplifying things and creating an even more transparent computing experience, where you just think of what you want to do and then do it, whether that's editing video or shell scripting, and the computer is up to the task. It's a great platform. The best desktop ever, no doubt.


  • I'm not at all surprised they've shifted gears on this one. And might I add, it's *probably* got something to do with the public opinion on this topic ;).

    I think (can't say for certain of course) this puts solid evidence behind the concept of making an effort to comment on proposed specs and such. I suppose this falls into the same category as "write to your representatives", although we seem to having better luck on the royalty front today than on legislative issues.

    To all who submitted requests that this "standard" not be adopted, you certainly have my thanks (and most likely the thanks of hundreds of thousands of developers who want a royalty-free standards system).

  • Maybe Apple is trying to protect valuable marketshare as a web appliance producer. Closed or RAND-based licensing schemes would not help them maintain standards compliance, and many of the currently free but very useful Mac apps for browsing the web would have to change strategies.

    Finally, a company figuring out that its restrictive practices with licensing have hurt their marketshare and the industry at large.
  • Sanity prevails once more in Cupertino.

    Not the first time, but maybe the last?

    • Not the first time, but maybe the last?

      Yep, the beleagured Apple is dying again! They'll be gone within a year.

      Oh wait, they were gonna die within a year five years ago? And ten years ago? Yet they're still here? Hmm.

  • More info/links (Score:5, Informative)

    by hansk ( 107187 ) on Friday October 12, 2001 @06:56PM (#2422571) Homepage

    There has been some good discussion and links related to this issue over at Dave Winer's scripting.com [scripting.com].

    Also, over at Zeldman's www.zeldman.com [zeldman.com].

  • How can a royality based so called standard be a standard? Isnt a standard based on mutual agreement or compromise?

    Kinda goes against the spirit doesnt it.

  • the others (Score:2, Insightful)

    by staeci ( 85394 )
    Was there any member of the w3c who didn't support this at all?

    Any company which did support it and now doesn't is just reacting to the fact that they got caught out trying to screw the entire internet community for a quick buck.
  • I have accepted a position on the W3C Patent Policy Board. One has also been offered to Eben Moglen of FSF, and I think he's accepted.

    Bruce Perens

  • A quick peek at their wallets changed their minds. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thesolo ( 131008 ) <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Friday October 12, 2001 @07:41PM (#2422649) Homepage
    This was definitely not a case of public outcry changing their opinion--Apple & HP have both been flamed to death before (think constant lawsuits & layoffs, respectively), with no policies changing. However, once they realized that they would NOT be the top players in this, and that they would probably wind up having to pay MS/Sun/InsertBigNameCompanyHere for their patents, it suddenly didn't look like such a good idea.

    And you know what? I don't care about their reasoning. I'm just happy that they backed out of a horrible idea...even if it wasn't for the right reasons.
  • Enlightened self interest will stop the bleeding until we can fully rehabilitate the public sphere. First explain to corporations why closed standards hurt their profits, then make people understand why proprietary information hurts their freedom.

    Bryguy
  • Who can I write at Apple and HP to express appreciation? This is good news!

  • Response from HP (Score:5, Informative)

    by dpol ( 189913 ) <dpol.swipnet@se> on Friday October 12, 2001 @09:50PM (#2422880) Homepage
    There's an interesting interview at NEWS.COM with Jim Bell, director of standards and industry initiatives at Hewlett-Packard, titled "Why the W3C needs to be royalty free" [cnet.com].
  • Here's the link since I didn't see it posted already: http://www.apple.com/about/w3c/ [apple.com].

    A one page statement describing the issues, their opinion, and their desired resolution. It's the top story on their news page, so hopefully it will let more people know about the issue.

  • I knew ya could :)

    This one was a no-starter from the get-go.

    Open standards raise all ships, folks, and it's heartening to see these two titans place their imprimatur behind that rather obvious notion.

    Kudos all around, gang. Especially to those who raised thoughtful, well reasoned objections. We may have won this one. YAY!

    Next stop? The US.GOV and their recent salivations about dining on our constitution.. a document that has served as inspiritation for the oppressed and disenfranchised masses the world over.

    Let's not drop the ball on THAT battle, people.

    Keep your flameage to a modest level, but call every radio talk show you can find (THAT works far better than *mail) and inform the vast unwashed that THEY and their FAMILIES' security is in jeopardy if the gummint gets its' way, and in any degree dilutes the Oh Most Holy of our first Ten.

    We need a Media blitz. A bunch of pissed off geeks can accomplish that, and more, given the hunger to do so.

    (gunnery sergeant Hartman)

    GET HUNGRY, PEOPLE!
    ARE YOU HUNGRY?

    Sir, yes sir!

    DO YOU WANNIT?

    Sir, yes sir!

    THEN GET YOUR SOFT, FLABBY GEEK ASSES OUT THERE, AND REDEEM OUR DAMNED CONSTITUTION!

    SIR! *YES*! SIR!

    Dismissed..

    (/gunnery sergeant Hartman)

  • Shouldn't IBM drop support for Royalties on Web Standards to? Why are they still pushing for this?
  • > From the peer-pressure-works dept.

    Given the amount of fuss that's been raised by geeks everywhere, shouldn't this be from From the peer-to-peer-pressure-works dept.?

    That said, I'm glad that the corps are coming to their senses. Enough people have grumbled stuff along the lines of "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the Web was built on open standards" and not enough of "let's get a rocket scientist to explain to the suits why this is bad".

    It's only taken ten years, but I'm slightly enthused to see that the PHBs of the world are starting to notice that the grunts in the trenches are clued up on things flying below their radar, and hear those grunts out (even if the words are still too big and not quite buzzword-compliant enough for their tastes).

    Cheers,
    --bmc

  • I think two points are missing in the discussion of the issue of patents and web standards:

    1. Software patents are not going to go away. The reason the W3C gives for putting forward the RAND policy is not without substance. The software world is in the midst of a land grab for lucrative patents. As such, it is inevitable that more and more formats that are used on the web are going to be encumbered by patents. The only question is whether the W3C is going to have a say on these formats. So I do not blame the W3C for putting forward the RAND. I blame legislators that have let software come under the scope of patents, and the voters who put the legislators in place.
    2. Who is promoting patents? The RAND policy would obviously be a kick in the teeth to free software developers. So who is kicking free software? Is it Apple and HP? No. At least, not any longer. Is it that evil Microsoft? No. But it seems from the comments of Bruce Parens that one of the firms doing the kicking is the firm that possesses one of the biggest patent portfolios on the planet, IBM.

    To me, the biggest threat to free software is not aggressive marketing tactics by the likes of Microsoft. The biggest threat comes from patents. Given that the voters obviously do not give a damn about software patents and the legislators will follow the lead of whatever lobbyist is sticking cash in their pocket, the only chance of a change in this issue is if a prominent software company were to say they thought that patents did not promote progress in the software industry. Which is why I think that IBM should be given the squeeze.

    The free software community should make their concern on the matter clear to the decision makers within IBM. We do not need your trendy advertising campaigns. We do not need your journaling file system, we already have those. We do not even need your expensive Linux labs. What we want is the freedom to code.

    IBM and any other company that would like to curry favour with free software developers should have one thing made clear: your cannot, in good conscience, support both free software and software patents.

  • Naturally a company will do something like this if they believe it is to their benefit, but with Apple they truly seem to be trying real hard to help open standards along and because the company, is such a reflection of Steve Jobs, it unlike other large companies can have a conscience as generally what Steve says goes. Corporate culture they say starts at the top, and you can see several examples of Apple's commitment to open standard support. They use XML extensively. When they needed to add additional web support to AppleScript they choose to use XML-RPC and SOAP. Once they had a platform that can run it, they have fully and as completely as they can integrated Java as a core language and environment for OS X. They make sure that OS X ships with perl and Open SSH and TCL and PHP. I know you say that its a Unix OS and they just got that for free, but your wrong its a Mac OS and they had to put man hours in to updating the packages and then QA, no Mac OS has had these by default before and Windows (their primary competitor) doesn't but they did anyway.

    Plus look at some of these quotes

    Quote from Fink's FAQs (fink.sourceforge.net)
    "Apple is aware of Fink and has started to support us as part of their Open Source relations efforts. So far they are providing us with pre-release seeds of new Mac OS X versions in the hope that Fink packages can be adapted in time for the release. Quote: "Hopefully it underscores the commitment that many suspect we're not willing to provide. We'll get better at the open source game over time." Thanks Apple! "

    Quote from the ask Darwin (www.apple.com/darwin)
    "Q: Can I add something to Darwin (using the Open Source versions), then run the rest of Mac OS X on top of it?
    A: Since Mac OS X is built using that same repository, and so many components are fully Open Source, the answer is generally yes. However, a few Mac OS X components (particularly Core Foundation) include both open and non-open code, so replacing Mac OS X pieces with the "Darwin" version would result in a loss of functionality (and potentially an unusable system). Our goal is to have a clean separation of open and non-open components, so that it becomes easy to interchange a customized Darwin system into a Mac OS. For example, many non-open drivers are available as loadable binary modules, allowing them to be used with a Darwin (or Darwin-ized) system. We are also looking at ways to make it identify to find out which versions of Darwin code correspond to shipping versions of Mac OS X."

    Plus Apple within 2 weeks had the Darwin 1.4.1 CD image out (1.4.1 corresponds to X.1).

    So to end my long ramble, I think Apple just did this, because I think the guys running the show at Apple Steve, Avie, Rubenstien etc all believe in open standards and Apple's actions in the last while support this.
  • .. if they are not truely open. Having "paid for" patented technology means that you could potentially be prevented from seeing data on sites cause your browser does not or cannot support something (not that that does not already happen ->quicktime / gif).

    I think the reality is that M$ who works heavily with these standards to implement them could end up patenting stupid crap and charging apple and hp (and everyone else) lots.

    rm -rf /bin/laden

Slashdot Top Deals

I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham

Close