W3C Approved Patent Policy: Royalty Free Standards 144
Danny Weitzner writes "The World Wide Web Consortium has approved the W3C
Patent Policy based on review by the W3C Advisory Committee and thanks to lots of input and cajoling from the Open Source community and slashdoters. Read the public Director's decision. We're the first major standards organization that sets the explicit goal of producing only standards that can be implemented without paying patent royalties. Our policy requires legal commitments from all who contribute to the development of Web standards that patents held by the contributor will be available on royalty-free terms. Both proprietary and open source software have been critical to the growth of the Web. With this policy, we intend to enabled continued innovation by both open source and proprietary development."
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, Bezos already has a patent on the use of a royalty-free patent policy. Though I'm sure he'd be willing to license it to W3C for a reasonable fee.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
This one would have been a small disaster if it had gone wrong. Now let's hope the EU makes the right decision too!
Daniel
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with a "royalty free" patent, is that it can be sold to someone who then charges you for it.
This what happened with the jpg pattent. check the previous stories on this subject for more info.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=45
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/savingeuro
Not real likely (Score:2)
I'm guessing most patent holders aren't that braindead. Unless some patent holder did it just to ensure that no one that later took over their company turned into a bunch of dicks, like Caldera. Kind of "suicide by GPL."
hmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
It will make no difference. W3C does not issue patents, governments do. The issue here is that patented work with non-free licenses will not be accepted as W3C standards.
It's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a shame (Score:1, Informative)
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's a shame (Score:3, Interesting)
If the RFC is the 1st publication of the idea then the "Patent Parasite" wins.
At least this way W3C members can criple patent parasite.
Another step is to use those patented W3C standards to countersue people who attack OSS developers. It's just realy dificult to design a policy for this.
Who would trust patent licences now? (Score:2)
How can W3C ever trust any closed source IP when it involves placing yourself one clever lawyer away from being sued for applying that IP outside the sandbox of the initial agreement.
In the current climate, licencing patented methods could be even more deadly in the long run. Licenced companies may end up preparing for an onslaught of creditor raised IP suits ever time a past or present partner
Does this mean the Web is GPLed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does this mean the Web is GPLed? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does this mean the Web is GPLed? (Score:2)
MIT or BSD, maybe.. GPL, no.
Object of Desire (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Object of Desire (Score:2, Interesting)
though I must say the day I'm forced to use a GUI for writing web pages is the day I quit.
Re:Object of Desire (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Object of Desire (Score:2)
Besides, then you lose your bragging rights to "I actually bothered to make my homepage XHTML 1.1 and CSS2-compliant by hand!"
Re:Object of Desire (Score:2)
Re:Object of Desire (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Object of Desire (Score:2)
Call me wacky, but maybe that's because CSS3 is still under development.
CSS2 is not fully supported because CSS3 is still under development? Umm, how did you work that one out?
By the way, Opera 7 supports a number of the CSS3 drafts (although not the one I was using).
Re:Object of Desire (Score:2)
If you're concerned with full support, then CSS1 is the logical choice. If not, then give CSS3 a go. Just realize that an under-development W3C recommendation isn't meant for a production site.
And yes, CSS2 support isn't complete, but it's pretty close. I do all of my sites in CSS2 and don't have
Re:Object of Desire (Score:1, Interesting)
Summary: Because IE doesn't support the ancient HTML standard OBJECT tag, the author considers it to be "new technology". Now excuse me, but if IE sucks, isn't that IE's problem?
Switching from IMG to OBJECT is logical. Not only that, but HTML 4.0-compliant browsers will deal with it just fine, making it nice and backwards-compatible. Your browser doesn't support HTML 4.0? I would encourage an upgrade. It's 2003 for chrissakes.
Good deal... (Score:5, Funny)
Your own damn fault, guys. You got greedy.
There's only so many people you can harass at the party before you won't get invited to the next ball. Have fun suing each other out of existance.
Re:Good deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good deal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote with your money, in other words.
Yeah, when will they learn? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good deal... (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, this is already happening. Look at the Web Services area. OASIS [oasis-open.org] has taken the lead for the standardization of most Web Services technologies working on top of SOAP (UDDI, ebXML, SAML, XACML, etc.) Is it a coincidence that OASIS has a RAND policy instead of a royalty-free policy?
Is is a coincidence that some large companies pulled out of W3C and moved to OASIS? Of course, there are other reasons than the patent policy. The high membership fees of the W3C may be working against it. Also, some political wars between IBM, Microsoft and Sun can explain why some discussions started in some W3C working groups were killed and moved to OASIS. But still, I am hoping that W3C can regain some of the influence that it has lost in the recent months. Otherwise, the royalty-free policy may be largely irrelevant.
Re:Good deal... (Score:1)
Great, so instead of having "One web", we have a million compuservs, AOLs and Earthlinks all with portal controlled interwebs. God I love that plan! 40 browsers and activex/java plugins to buy your next DVD online.
Sign me up.
</sarcasm>
Re:Good deal... (Score:4, Insightful)
We should be thankful for that and move on to the next phase, i.e. campaigning to prevent the balkanization you've predicted.
Re:Good deal... (Score:1)
Re:Good deal... (Score:2)
Respectfully, you are talking out of your butt. In fact, this move was made precisely to keep the W3C from becoming irrelevant, by ensuring it will put forth only standards that can be generally implemented.
G
Don't shoot the messenger... (Score:2)
This comment doesn't make sense to me. Patent lawyers represent their clients/employers. They do what they're told. Yes, they advise their client in patent matters, but if the client says "don't go after this" or "hey, aren't they infringing on my patent?" then the lawyers listen. It's not the lawyers that got greedy, it was the patent holders.
psxndc
Re:.NET (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:.NET (Score:2)
The parts of it that are both good and have something whatsoever to do with the web are mostly standardized already.
The rest of the
Why did it take so long? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why did it take so long? (Score:1, Funny)
Please be advised of our patent US#63245431 on "method and process for deciding the page that comes after 16".
Althought you are currently not infringing on our valuable intellectual property, and we are not required by law to do so, we thought you might appreciate an unsolicited "heads-up".
Note that we also hold a patent on "method and process for deciding the page that comes before 18", so no trying to come in from the other way.
Sincerely,
LawyerDrone
Standards Org? (Score:5, Interesting)
I could have sworn that, for some time, the W3C used to specificaly state that it did not produce standards, only reccomendations. That, apparently has changed, and I'm wondering just when that happened.
Along these lines, just how does a vendor consortium such as the W3C become a standards body? Is it simply a matter of judging public acceptance and then declaring oneself to be a standards body? (I think that's basically what OASIS did.)
Re:Standards Org? (Score:2)
I'm certain of that too. Now you see the W3C website littered with references to their "standards". I have no idea when it happened, but I'm pretty sure it was in the last couple of years.
Re:Standards Org? (Score:2)
I used to poke fun at WaSP [webstandards.org], the Web Standards Project, because:
But I see now the W3C has started to believe the hype.
I liked it better when the W3C just said, "We think these things are good enough to go try out in Real Life. Let us know how they work."
There's still hope, yet. (Score:2)
Bad idea. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Bad idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, what's the big hurry?
Daniel
Re:Bad idea. (Score:1)
Re:Bad idea. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it would. But that's not what the WC3 is doing, they aren't ending software patents. They are saying that nothing that requires paying royalties on a patent to implement can be part of the standard. You can patent your cool new *ML generator but you can't require everyone who uses *ML to pay a fee. This will allow more people to inovate not stifel inovation.
Re:Bad idea. (Score:2)
Re:Bad idea. (Score:1)
But what reason does someone have to innovate, if they can't make any money off it? What do you get in return for your work at inventing something?
Re:Bad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
But raising this money by collecting royalties from every user of that infrastructure is a bad idea. To exaggerate a little (yeah, just little), imagine where the economoy would be if everyone had to pay 0.01 cent to the inventor of the wheel for every turn of a wheel he is using...
More to the point, a new web stan
Re:Bad idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, SQL is a standard. Lots of database vendors make lots of money, yet none hold a patent on SQL, as far as I know.
What going RF does is remove one potential source of a non-level playing field. Vendors large and small can provide implementations of W3C Recommendations without having to pay a royalty for the Recommendations themselves. This does not mean such firms can't make money, and the lack of a royalty opens the door to small firms atte
Re:Bad idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
What are you, an insensitive imperialistic American pig dog!? (j/k)
What's left, of course, is motivation for the spirit of doing it. For the fundamental human quality known as 'endeavour', 'fortitude', or 'curiosity'.
There are plenty of things in life more valuable than money, greedo. And lots of the modern things you and I take for granted got that way in spite of it.
All Your Base Should Belong To Nobody (Score:5, Interesting)
You're confusing sales with service (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, as other folks have said, `the equation' is a broad area, covering applications software, systems software, consumer hardware, infrastructure, services, and loads of other parts. This simply affects one part.
And secondly, we're not starting to remove money from this part; we're simply ensuring it doesn't enter it! Think about it: almost all the standards for which the web etc. have become known are patent-free. Do you think the we
Re:Bad idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you what's left when you remove royalties from the equation -- and it certainly isn't shills like you. It is innovation, freedom, and advancement for everyone. Why should I have to pay a guy a buck because he came up with the idea of a "shopping cart" on a website? Why can't I take the idea and move it forward? It is alright to patent machines and such, but patenting ideas is absurd. (And, on a lesser note, I wouldn't mind them patenting their code and only their code -- but what's the use of that?)
And ask yourself this: did the internet grow by leaps and bounds because Microsoft came out with IIS or because a bunch of organizations decided to pool their efforts to make one solid web server that can be configured to do anything a web server should do? I personally think proprietary software is holding us back and costing us far more than the cost of licensing the software because we can't take their ideas and build on them.
Then where do we get paid? Two ways: By implementing existing solutions in a way that people can use them, or by implementing entirely new solutions. For both instances, people are willing to pay money to have someone else do it. For both instances, it really doesn't matter whether the end result is Open Source or proprietary to them. We know that going the Open Source will allow us to satisfy more people with better products than the other case, because IT will constantly be evolving and building on the successes and failures of the past, rather than limiting the growth to one giant monopoly.
So true . . . (Score:2)
As an analyst in a company entirely dependent on spreadsheets and some half-ass implementations of Crystal Reports (which is a severly limitted package, in itself), I'd say that most of my time goes to coding (Bash, Perl, Mysql, all on Linux . . . you get the picture). No, IS doesn't support Linux, but my boss turned over a sony vaio laptop (department owned) a couple of years ago, so it doesn't really matter.
Instead of running an excel filter, copying, pasting to another sheet so it can be summed, copyi
Why machines and not software? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm curious as to the grounds on which we may claim that patents on machines are permissible, but that patents on software is impermissble.
First consider the scenario in which we create a machine which processes raw cotton. We designed both the exterior and the internal workings of the machine, cast in iron.
Now consider the scenario in which there exists a general purpose machine which could potentially be made to, amongst other t
Re:Why machines and not software? (Score:2)
I don't know what such a reason might be.
Why? Its simple. Show me the inner workings of your cotton gin.
Thats easy, just open the hood.
Now, show me the inner workings of Microsoft Word... you can do that right? No?
So, in one case, its obvious and straight
Re:Why machines and not software? (Score:2)
Here's my thought: 1) mathematical expressions are not patentable (on the assumption that math exists "out there" somewhere and we just discover it).
2) any program in a Turing complete language is identical to some other program in every other Turing complete language.
3) Haskell is a Turing complete language.
4) any program in Haskell is also an expression in the L
Re:Bad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
But one thing that has happened several times over the years, was that sometimes I couldn't easily/cheaply interface with or convert data from some other system. Customer gets my huge estimate, decides not to do it, and then I get nothing.
And if I have to "invent" something, I do it for the purpose of getting money from my customers when they buy my products. Not having exclusivity on the "invention" (I put that in quotes, because, hey, look at the stuff that gets patented these days) isn't going to stop me from doing what I have to do, to get my customers' money. What's the worse that can happen? A competitor clones my "innovation" after it has already been deployed and I've been paid for it? Ooh, competition and free markets, I'm scared! Hold me!
Not having to pay royalties means one less annoyance/complication to worry about, and fewer expenses to take away from the bottom line. This decision doesn't just help Free Software / Open Source guys. It helps everyone except monopolists.
significant, but then again (Score:5, Interesting)
billy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:billy (Score:3, Funny)
Find out what these "standards" are that everyone speaks of and find a way to buy them out.
Obligatory Simpsons reference...
this is the issue that made me join the EFF (Score:5, Interesting)
should have done it long ago
and i challenge anyone else who hasn't done so, to join now. its not a whole lot of money and they really need the support.
very good news to hear it went our way this time
Re:this is the issue that made me join the EFF (Score:1)
Re:this is the issue that made me join the EFF (Score:2)
Re:this is the issue that made me join the EFF (Score:2)
should have done it long ago
and i challenge anyone else who hasn't done so, to join now. its not a whole lot of money and they really need the support.
very good news to hear it went our way this time
While you're at it, could you please join the IETF as well (it's free, basically, you choose your working group, sign up for the mailing list, and you're in). The issue is: IETF does allow patented standards, and we want them to stop that.
Hah! (Score:2, Funny)
Exuent Microsoft
But then, it's probably too much to hope for. I can already see the blue-eyed look on the Softies' faces: "But
Is it just me?? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about inadvertantly patented standards? (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens when a standard is produced in good faith by one or more parties, the W3 picks it up and ultimately generates a standard. Then everybody else picks it up and builds it into their browser, OS, application, tooth brush, and household pets.
Then, a year later, SomeEvil Co (A leader in Evil Patents since 1899.) decides that there is infringement and sues everybody involved?
The problem is two fold.. one is that there needs to be a process to search for applicable patents.. but the problem here is that too many patents are too broad. Secondly, if the search doesn't turn up any problems, whats to stop somebody from deciding that HTTP chunking infringes on their patent on, say, chunky peanut butter?
Is there a process to find *potentially applicable patents* and going to those holders to ask for explicit approval of the use? Or would that just be begging for lawsuits anyway?
Corporate Strategy... (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest problem I see with the W3C's patent policy is that it encourages corporations to license their patents on a royalty free basis until the standard has gained such widespread adoption that developers have no alternative but to comply. Then, said corporations will be able to charge exorbitant licensing fees for such patents. Sure, the W3C could then exclude them from the next standard, but given that so many developers have to focus on backward compatibility with the already established user bas
Re:Corporate Strategy... (Score:1)
OTOH, the rambus thing has pretty well played itself out because it forced the R & D that brought other, pr
I'm sorry, I think you meant . . . (Score:2)
Someevil CO, otherwise know as "SCO."
You may carryon . .
L33T uT0P14 (Score:1, Interesting)
This policy will never hold, as it allows patent extortionists who are not members to snipe at the W3 with licensing demands. The process for "resolving" disputes is hopelessly optimistic: the group is apparently arrogant enough to believe that the sheer power of the ideals expressed in their policy will discourage profit-seeking behavior, and that the organization will
How does this affect GIF? (Score:1)
If only Photoshop had better support for PNG optimization.
Re:How does this affect GIF? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:How does this affect GIF? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Specific image types aren't really recommended one way or another: Graphics on the Web [w3.org]
2) The <img> tag is possibly going away in XHTML 2.0 and would be replaced by <object>. This makes the point even more moot, as <object> is pretty damn broad.
3) The real question is of browser support. I think we can all agree that Mozilla won't drop GIF support for quite awhile and IE probably never will. Hell, IE doesn't even support PNG properly.
Next stop... IETF (Score:4, Interesting)
It is wonderful that the w3c is willing to keep data formats and the higher protocol levels unencumbered (this is a real victory to all the people who made their opinions known), but the infrastructure is even more important.
Re:Next stop... IETF (Score:2)
It is wonderful that the w3c is willing to keep data formats and the higher protocol levels unencumbered (this is a real victory to all the people who made their opinions known), but the infrastructure is even more important.
Indeed. Personally, I've just been waiting for the W3C policy to become official bef
One more month... (Score:4, Informative)
Patent #4,558,302 expires on June 20, 2003.
Joy!
Re:One more month... (Score:1)
If GIF was a W3C standard and is not royalty free, then should they remove that from the standard and make every web page that use them non compliant...
Then next month they can put it back into the standard... ???
---
burn all
Re:One more month... (Score:2)
Re:One more month... (Score:2, Funny)
Mr. Murphy you see, is alive and well, and now Senator Dizzy will bring up an emergency bill to get that patent extended for another 75 years.
Sometimes its better to just STFU.
Simple Idea (Score:1)
It already works in this country
Complicated idea:
Give vendors of goods the right to refuse payment according to how they believe the money was obtained. As well as the obvious stolen money / drug dealing / prostitution / arms dealing profits, this may well come to be extened to things like gambling winnings and lawsuit money.
Once people find their Pound Notes getting refused even despite having the Queen's head on them, these activities will cease to
Re:Simple Idea (Score:1)
Extending the policy (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I think we need to go further. Technologies built on top of W3C standards should not require royalties. Ack
Why do we need to do this?
Intellectual Property lawyers are greedy greedy greedy. They don't give a crap about the technical merits of a patent or innovation. They care about how many hours they can bill you and making partner in the firm. Anyone heard of patent portfolios? I think 10-30% of why biotech is not showing the results everyone expected is that these fucking patent issues have KILLED innovation. Go Canada for rejecting the Harvard mouse patent! Biotech is out of juice and these bastards have set their eyes on tech now. We must nip this asap!
Why is this justified?
W3C commands a significant position in the evolution of the World Wide Web. If it was a for-profit organization, it could easily say
Iq
Most of what W3C does shouldn't be patentable (Score:4, Insightful)
It could be argued that W3C does its job best when it produces standards which are not novel, and are essentially what any person with the same mindset would produce on a good day. This is the exact opposite of the original, non-obvious nature required (though perhaps not enforced) by US patent law.
W3C is mostly about communication standards, and it's all about interoperability. Describing stuff in XML is more of a categorization skill than an invention. Good librarians are as important as good engineers-- and patents are about as useful as bicycles for ducks.
Finally, iteroperability only works if everyone can use it. XML and "semantic web" stuff is frequently going to be web services which are parsed by spiders and middleware servers (including web servers), where vendor or technology lock-in is anathema. Patents or threats of patents are at least as likely to slow adoption of standards as to speed it.
Other coverage... (Score:1)
royalty free != cost free (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent holder can still charge you a one-time $100 million dollar _license fee_ if they want, yet still be compliant with the wording of the W3C policy of "no royalties".
Stopping it? (Score:2)
'Viral' Nature? (Score:2)
Royalty-free is not free (Score:1)
While it is a very good thing that people who want to implement applications that follow the standards don't need to pay money for doing that, it is of course bad that they still may need to pay other things, for example freedom of license. The restrictions may be such that GPL'd applications are not allowed, for whatever reason. If MS or similar companies abuse this, then this may not be a good thing after all.
What about field-of-use restrictions? (Score:2)
As I recall, being royalty-free is a step in the right direction but insufficient for the Free Software community to be able to continue to innovate. The FSF made their concerns [gnu.org] quite clear--if the W3C allows field-of-use restrictions to encumber standards, one is prevented from developing software that goes outside the prescribed activity.
I didn't see any language in Tim Berners-Lee's statement that directly addressed this concern.
Re:/. editors never heard of a hyphen? (Score:2, Informative)
I consider my English pretty good, and I thought you were wrong there. So I dug out my Oxford Manual of Style to look up what it said about the case. And I must concede you were right. For anyone interested in why, here's the rule:
"Hyphenate two or more modifiers preceding the noun when they form a un
Re:/. editors never heard of a hyphen? (Score:2)
Or, to put it more bluntly, get the stick out of your ass and get a life.
To everyone else: I apologize for my rant, its still early and I haven't have my tea yet.