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.

Good!

We are not far away from a company
called Corporation. The only company...

respond (not just on this board)

Well, I had already sent my comments before this appeared on slashdot.

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.

Hard to say it better than Alan Cox

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 noncopyable web pages" being one of them. Of course the protection they really mean is "against reading by non IE users".

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.

Sorry.

Loosening these restrictions is in the interests of business who hold patents.. but not in the interests of the potential future business getting into the web.. and that's the problem.

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.

But why?

What I cannot understand is - why exactly they need it? Are there any Web standards incoming so complex that they need someone who will charge a fee for it and there's can be no open alternative possible? I know that almost for every proprietary standard known well enough there's an open alternative, often superior to its proprietary match. So why exactly W3C needs restricted standards? Just because someone paid for it? If so, the things are very sad indeed.

This is a step FORWARD

Slashdot's pathological hatred of patents is silly and immature. Patents are absolutely necessary to allow businesses to recoup their research investments.

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

Yes, but the only reason the modern electronics industry got off the ground is that people blatently violated those very patents. (I heard Jack Kilby say this in a recent talk.)

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

What, exactly, is WRONG with the current web standard? HOW IS IT BROKEN? It already does anything that we would need.

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

Trasistors are hardware, not software. The issue here is software patents and open standards.

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

First, the parent post is not flame bait. It is a different opinion; which I happen to think is flawed, but this is besides the point.

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...

There are better examples.

"fun with other 'reasonable' licensing (MP3 and GIF come immediately to mind)"

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.

Cox would have more impact without the hyperbole

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

This was bound to happen sooner or later. The same thing happened years ago with HTML 3.2. W3C had HTML 3.0 spec which had some neat things and was trying to bring sanity into demented HTML that browsers at the time were "implementing."

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.

Just another brick from the wall

Well, this is just another example of how the Internet is turning from a geek haven to a capitalistic corporate marketing tool. We all knew it. We all saw it coming. Did anyone think that pirating software, MP3's, cracking corporate networks, posting slanderous comments on message boards and all the other normally-socially-inacceptable behavior would last forever?

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 =)

It's not too late...

Go read Cox's comment then look through some of the other comments on the site.Try to work out something sensible to say, then say it; there are already over 150 comments from this month, all (as far as I can see) overwhelmingly against this policy.

Obvious angles on it:

• Cox's quote from the W3C: "The W3C was created to lead the Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability"
• The authors of the RAND proposal are: Microsoft, HP, Philips, Apple, and a couple of w3c people. The W3C is NOT acting for the benefit of the web user here.
• Software patents in themselves are debatably useful/ethical. Their place in so-called open systems like the internet is not a subject that deserves conversation beyond the word 'no'.
• This has gone through as quietly as possible so far - could it be that there's a little underhandedness going on here?
• Is this just a proof that the W3C is inadequate and needs replacement by a truly open standards body? If this passes their opinion is quite clearly worth nothing.
• The existence of patents causes a huge imbalance between corporate and open developer. In the current climate, it makes the technology entirely unusable, legally, for the latter group.Do you want to freeze open/free software development entirely out of the w3c's concept of the internet? What am I asking... of course you do, corporate buttkissers.
• This is a disgusting potential misuse of the W3C's position. Quite simply, they are in a position of responsibility and should know better.
• Has the W3C entirely forgotten their original ideals, to see standards compliant software and free, open, usable Internet? Like Alan Cox said, I can smell the rot from here.
• Patents, in the final analysis, give the corporation power over the people. They can relicense, they can enforce, whenever, whatever, and however they see fit. Patents are a force that could quite well serve for silencing dissenters and giving the power for expression on the Internet only to those with the power to pay. Do not follow the rush to put a price tag on the net; try to remember why we're here and where it really came from. Had the net been closed source in the first place it would no doubt have died the death of most proprietary efforts; too expensive, and tightly controlled by bureaucratic bastards who can't get their thumbs out of their arses for long enough to get any actual innovation done. We don't need it, we don't want it and if the W3C endorses it, then damn them like the corporate sheep they're rapidly becoming - a standards body should not be so visibly a puppet to [e-mail].

Bad for the W3C, bad for business, bad for users

"The W3C was created to lead the Web to its full potential by developing
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

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."

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])

copy of my comments

My comments as send to the PPWG:

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 [e-mail]

Feel free to re-use.

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

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

Letter to [e-mail]

I think that the W3C incorporating a "non-discriminatory" license to patents does just the opposite -

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.

ha ha

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

my note

Just fired this off, feel feel to copy:

Dear Patent Policy Working Group:

As a software developer who works with W3C standards on a daily basis, I urge you not to loosen the W3C policies regarding consideration of patented technologies. Open standards must remain just that - open to _all_, regardless of ability to pay.

The "reasonable and non-discriminatory" concept is a red herring. As we strive to extend the benefits of digital communication to the entire world, it should be clear that in a world where patent laws and financial resources vary widely, the only "reasonable and non-discriminatory" fee structure is zero.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tom Swiss

My message to www-patentpolicy-comment

Feel free to reuse the parts you like... It's intentionally mostly free of Microsoft- or patent-bashing (you know who will make the final decision...)
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:

• Non-profit organizations or individuals, such as open source developers, can no longer implement the w3c standards, effectively making browsing the web from open source operating systems impossible.
  
  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.
• Non-profit projects aside, it will also be much harder for a new company to get started because the barrier of entry will be much higher.
• The Internet got where it is solely because it is based totally on open 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)
• Consider what happened with the unisys patent and compressed gif graphics. When unisys started wanting royalties for gif pictures, pretty much everything on the net had to be converted, even though gif was never officially endorsed by w3c.
  
  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).
• There are already open formats for almost every purpose out there. If, for example, you can't get a guarantee that the SVG format will never require royalties, create/use an alternate standard. For an alternative to SVG, starting from Kontour (http://koffice.kde.org/)'s XML based vector graphics format comes to mind.

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?

Corporations "stole" our television airwaves that the government gave to the people and they will "steal" the internet and turn it into a pre-packaged homogonized entertainment device. Remember cant let the people get smarted we might actually figure out what Monsanto and Disney are doing to us and many others in the world, wouldnt want that now would we.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The progress the W3C has made in the past *without* giving in to royalty-burdened patents has been absolutely fantastic.

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.

W3C becoming irrelevant

Do any major sites follow the HTML spec properly anyway?

There are a number of reasons:
* What is out there works.
* W3C specs even surpass the most obscure RFCs in their obtrusity.
* W3C specs are usually playing catch-up with existing technologies.

In the end, if I cannot view a page, I won't. This happens with flash quite frequently, I refuse to install the damn thing.

Trial by Jury of Peers?

I'm ignorant here... but could someone explain what happens when a patent is contested? Can one ask for a trial by Jury of Peers? I can imagine how a patent would fool most laywers or lay people... but a jury pool of practicing programmers; this may be a different story, no? Also, I was wondering what happens when you win? Can you get damages? Against who?

Don't post here - send them an email instead!

Don't post here - send them an email instead! (Or do both!) I put in my 2 cents (since I don't know what else to do...)

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-patentpo li cy-comment

Last time I looked there were 250+ comments! Fortunately, most of them were opposed to incorporating patented technology into W3C recommendations.

Re: sending your comments to W3C

Since the publication of Adam's article on Linux Today, and the Slashdot listing of the article, many have written to voice disagreement with the current Working Draft of the W3C Patent Policy Framework.

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-2001081 6/

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

RANDsom?!?!

Just a thought

My email to the W3C...

I'm going to pass the opportunity to moderate this discussion because I think it's important that people do more than just post messages on Slashdot. This is a BIG issue people! This could have a major negative effect on the web. Don't just sit at your desk and curse the W3C: Do something about it - write to them and politely explain why it's such a bad idea. Remember that swearing, insulting and using g33k language won't help.

This is what I sent them (in case anyone cares):

The Internet was built on open standards - that is one of the main reasons why it has been successful and proprietry networks have all but disappeared.

The patent proposals being put forward are an anathema to the whole idea behind the web. We have already seen the damage done by software patents and de facto standards: GIF and MP3 are examples of this. Small developers are unable to innovate because of excessive license fees.

I have always had respect for the W3C but this move concerns me greatly. The W3C has pushed for "standards compliance" in web browsers. How will small developers be able to comply with these standards if license fees become a stumbling block? How would Tim Berners-Lee been able to develop the web if something fundamental such as TCP/IP had been patented?

The proposals are fine if you want to see web standards turned into a corporate playground, but for those of us who understood the web to be a method of exchanging rich content in a free environment, it is a sad day.

I would urge the W3C to abandon this course of action and stand up for the smaller developers in the world - people who, like Tim Berners-Lee, could be responsible for the "next big thing".

Sincerly.

Julian Regel

I've sent my comment. Have you?

My Comment [w3.org] to the www-patentpolicy-comment list [mailto]

We can sit here and talk about it all day, or we can do something...

-jerdenn

My Letter

Good afternoon. I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the proposed change in position regarding patented technologies in W3C standards.

As a long time internet user, I have come to realize the importance of freely implementable and open technologies as the primary factor in the scalability, reliability, and openness of the Internet. Since the beginnings of the global internet, the IETF has relied on open and freely available standards to ensure compatibility and security in the core functionality of the internet. Tools such as Sendmail, BIND, and other core technologies all rely on the existence of a free and open standard. If patented technolgies had been allowed in the critical RFCs implemented by these products, these carrier class free applications would have never been created. How much would such a situation have stifiled the growth of the internet?

Any patent incumbered technology, regardless of licensing scenario, prohibits the creation of freely available open source implementations of the techonogy. When this happens, the internet is no longer open, and a key insurance policy of free implementations of core standards in lost forever.

I urge the W3C to avoid placing control the web solely in the hands of for-profit corporations. The web is about freedom and innovation, and the policy proposal effectively cripples both.

Regards,

John Anderson

Vote for this on kuro5hin

Vote for this on kuro5hin, as more people will be likely to see this. submission story page [kuro5hin.org]

Embedded designers speak out!

If you do embedded software development, I urge you to fight this! Here's the comment I sent in:

As an embedded software developer, I find this proposed shift in the policies of the W3C on patent-encumbered standards quite disturbing. Some of the projects I work on have embedded HTML browsers, and due to the environment in which they are used I cannot always turn to a commercially provided solution for what I need to do. If I have to patent check every feature I try to place in my equipment, then I will simply not be able to place any new features in my equipment. And as the Web moves from standards-based documents (HTML) to non-standard documents (PDF, MS-DOC file, etc.), the utility of the Web as a platform to be built upon will be diminished.

Please, reconsider this peril-laden action. Require ALL W3C standards to be either completely patent unencumbered, or require all patents to be released for use by anybody without royalty for the purposes of implementing a W3C compliant app.

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.

Yet another time in which we're sending a flurry of email at the last minute with dubious effect. It would have been much better to begin sending in comments sometime between now and back in 1999 when they started deliberations on this. Is there no web site/group that actually keeps tabs on these things? We need to start the discussion at the beginning, or at least as soon as possible rather than 12 hours before time is up.

IETF IP policy

In fairness, it should be noted that many IETF
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 ....

By allowing patented technology to become an officially recognized standard, you essentially favor the creator of the patent in such a manner as to drive all business in that technology to a small group of vendors. The only official standards should be those that are open and freely available to all users.

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!

The comments are over 520 on the list and growing by 1-3 a minute.

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

I understand that people are a bit carried away by their fear of patents. So far, most submissions only reject the idea of patent-based Web technology, but fail to mention severe defects in the protocol outlined in the draft. This is a bit unfortunate because these concerns will be dealt with at the political level (at which the the decisions has already been made in one direction or the other), and the problems at the technical level remain if the draft is implemented despite the political opposition.

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!

If this becomes the official Patent Policy of the W3C, even current standards (CSS 1 and 2, HTML 4) are not safe from retroactive patent encumbrance.

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

A new and improved W3C: W4SG

As many others I too have lost confidence in the ability of W3C to direct the evolution of the Web.

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?

Something this important should have been brought up here over a month ago. To not hear about it until literally the last day is very surprising and disappointing. What happened? Some of the documents on the W3C site are dated last modified on 8/10/2001.

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".

Not a mandatory change

Keep in mind that this doesn't "change" any Working Group activities within the W3C to mandate RAND licensing.

Up front, in the charter, before lots of effort is expended in specification development, the Working Group _chooses_ their royalty terms. Most of the RAND terms under discussion don't involve payments at all, but rather things like cross-licensing. And most working groups (and all that work with "core technologies") are choosing a 100% RF (royalty free) policy.

It comes down to this--what happens when some faceless corporation patents a piece of technology essential to a certain specification? Do you trash the whole spec and start over, or do you deal with the obnoxious licensing?

The propoposal under discussion allows either, and says which is which up front. This is a vast improvement compared to the previous nether-state of patents and licensing within the W3C.

public comment ...

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."

The well of ideas

Ahmed had wasted his first wish foolishly, and his second wish
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 ...", he said as he paused, thinking carefully to make
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

Another agrees with Alan Cox.

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

Okay, it's after the deadline, but in mailing list [w3.org]

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:51:42 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: Richard Stallman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
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".

Best solution to patent problem

I'll say the same thing I said on http://www.winterspeak.com:

We all agree that current software patent laws are completely stupid and corrupt. But they're not going to go away anytime soon. So until then the above may be the best solution. Since patents have to be licensed equally to all organizations, no one company can try to shut out another through patents. So if Microsoft tried to use its patents to stop development in one area, it would have to hurt Red Hat, Sun, IBM, etc. equally. Under RAND, it seems, cross-licensing under discriminatory terms is no longer OK. The software patent system just sounds like a big mexican standoff to me.

Waitaminnit...

Here's what I think really happened. Some W3C members have probably been pushing for years to allow their patented technologies into standards. The sensible people used to just say "no", but under increasing pressure, they decided to let the "proposal" be drafted, then decided to see what the public thinks. The public completely shuts it down. Now they can say "nobody wants this" and have actual proof of this statement.

I want to know who the smart cookie was who came up with that! It's kinda brilliant.