[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents]
Forwards removed. Did I miss a discussion on this topic from this list? Such a fine opportunity for W3C bashing... :) Among other things: "This Last Call will be the only stage open for public comment". Yep, comment period ends tomorrow/today, Sunday 30-Sept (EST?). > >From: "Adam Warner" <usenet@c...> > >Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 02:32:29 +1200 > > Hi all, > > I have prepared a document dicussing the W3C's Patent Policy Framework > that is available on my web site at: > > http://www.openphd.net/W3C_Patent_Policy/draft.xhtml > (Plain/print version) > > and > > http://www.openphd.net/W3C_Patent_Policy > (Web site version) > > I have also included the document below in the event that my web site > becomes inaccessible. > > Please give the issues I have raised careful consideration and provide > the W3C with a comment by Sunday if you have concerns about this issue > (by emailing www-patentpolicy-comment@w...). > > *** Everyone, this is not an operating system advocacy post. There is no > reason Linux and Windows users cannot unite to protect royalty-free web > standards *** > > Regards, > Adam Warner > > > > W3C and the Promotion of Fee-based Standards for the Web > Adam Warner > > On 16 August 2001 the W3C made public a proposal to substantially change > their patent policy framework. Amongst the changes is support for a new > licensing model (called RAND) that legitimises the W3C's role in > developing and promoting standards that could require the payment of > royalties. > > This is a substantial shift in the philosophical direction of the W3C > and should be of extreme concern to anyone who values being able to > implement W3C standards in a royalty-free manner. In particular this has > profound implications for the support and implementation of future W3C > standards by the free software community. It is likely to extinguish > free software development and deployment in the areas where the payment > of royalties is required. > > The last call review period closes on 30 September 2001 (two days from > the time I am writing this abstract). The W3C is aware of the importance > of this issue and states "As the policy has ramifications on the Web > community at large, and as the Web Community have consistently helped > W3C in its efforts, views from this diverse community are essential."[1] > However, as evidence of how well this issue has been publicised, only > two relevant public comments have been made to the W3C archive to date. > It is a matter of urgency that you make your views known. A final policy > is expected from the W3C by February 2002. > > Please email all comments or suggested corrections to this document to > comment@o.... > > This draft is copyright Adam Warner, 28 September 2001. It may be > distributed freely. > > Table of Contents > > An Overview of the W3C > > W3C Recommendation Process > RAND Licensing > > Legitimising RAND > Back-door RAND > RAND in Action > What You Can Do > Essential Reference > > > An Overview of the W3C > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C, http://www.w3.org) has been highly > successful to date in its pursuit of "leading the Web to its full > potential". It actively promotes vendor neutral open and universal > standards. Its membership is to be commended for its ability to achieve > consensus and coordination with other standards bodies and consortia. > > The W3C has over 500 member organisations and approximately 66 full-time > employees. Even large and influential companies have only one vote at > the Advisory Committee level. > > Tim Berners-Lee, the Director of the W3C > (http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee) is also the inventor of the World > Wide Web. The W3C is a distinguished organisation producing quality > specifications, guidelines, software and validation tools. > > The W3C is involved in these important areas: > > * The architecture domain (e.g. DOM, the Document Object Model). > * Document formats (e.g. HTML, mathematics and graphics). > * Interaction (e.g. multimedia). > * Technological and societal issues (e.g. privacy, encryption and the > legal issues). > * Web accessibility initiatives (e.g. for user agents and authoring > tools). > > Crucially the work of the W3C is available to all. > > The W3C has an ongoing role in the development of the World Wide Web > from purely static document hosting to dynamic documents, application > services and automated applications. W3C Recommendation Process > > The W3C recommendation process typically follows a five step procedure: > > * Interested parties submit notes to the W3C. > * A working draft is produced (these typically come with big > disclaimers, and their citing as anything other than work in progress is > inappropriate). > * Candidate recommendations are made. > * A recommendation is proposed (this means the working group has reached > consensus and the work has been proposed by the Director to the Advisory > Committee for review). > * Recommendation. These have been ratified and can be relied upon to not > change. > > The W3C's Patent Policy Framework is at the Working Draft stage. The > Working Draft plainly states: "This Last Call period will be the only > opportunity for public comment."[2] > > Remember that "The Last Call period closes 30 September 2001." > > Furthermore, "As we have begun to use portions of the policy in the > day-to-day operations of W3C, we plan to skip the Candidate > Recommendation and move directly to an Advisory Committee Review of a > Proposed Recommendation draft." Later in this article I will show some > of the consequences of this in the release of the Scalable Vector > Graphics (SVG 1.0) Recommendation. > > > RAND Licensing > > This is the new licensing model the W3C is proposing that will allow for > non-royalty-free standards to become W3C sanctioned recommendations. > RAND stands for "Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" terms. "RAND means > that someone may or may not need to pay a fee, and that it is at the > discretion of the license holder."[3] > > In essence it requires that any company that imposes licensing > restriction must impose those restrictions uniformly (the > non-discriminatory part of the definition). It appears to follow that > non-commercial organisations cannot be given any preferential treatment > over commercial organisations since that would be discriminatory > licensing. > > The Working Draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/) (reproduced in > the Patent Policy Frequently Asked Questions, > http://www.w3.org/2001/08/16-PP-FAQ) also states that RAND allows for > licensing audits (RAND "may include reasonable, customary terms relating > to operation or maintenance of the license relationship such as the > following: audit (when relevant to fees), choice of law, and dispute > resolution.") > > > Legitimising RAND > > The W3C states that "Recommendations addressing higher-level services > may be appropriate for licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory > (RAND) terms." It is clear that "patent processes will increasingly > affect the Web. These factors make it clear that the W3C must have an > effective policy to address the inevitable increase in patent issues > that will come before the W3C Membership and the development community > as a whole." What isn't clear is that the appropriate response is for > the W3C to condone RAND licensing terms and to actively promote non-free > licenses. > > As part of the theoretical underpinning of this new policy we are told: > "On the other hand, there are other technologies, typically higher > level, where it might be appropriate to accept fee-bearing requirements > in a Recommendation. It is worth restating that, as of today, W3C is not > aware of any fee-based license required for any of its Recommendations. > Thus, there is an established history of RF [Royalty Free]." > > This distinction between lower and higher level technologies appears to > be somewhat arbitrary and misleading. Any technology that becomes > sufficiently used on the World Wide Web will become a part of everyday > infrastructure. For example it might be considered that a moving picture > format is sufficiently high level for RAND licensing to be appropriate. > But if that moving picture format becomes an integrated baseline > technology in future products then the chance of a future fee being > associated with that technology could be devastating.[4] > > The W3C has recognised the pressures from (some of) its members to be > able to exploit the potentially lucrative Internet-related patents they > have been accumulating. There appears to be a resignation that it may be > better for the W3C to promote standards that have non-free conditions > attached rather than to receive no consensus on potential > recommendations. > > However by doing this the W3C is diminishing the significant tool they > have to encourage royalty-free licensing: their official stamp of > approval on Internet technologies and credit to the companies that > provide those technologies. The support of the W3C is an important > factor for a web-based standard to achieve dominance. A company might be > willing to provide their intellectual property on royalty-free terms to > receive W3C approval and thus an increasing chance for their sponsored > standard to become widely adopted. Now those same companies may think > they can get the best of both worlds: A W3C recommendation and the > reserved right to charge licensing fees in the future. > > The prospect of future fees could also have a chilling effect upon > free/open source software development. Standards that require licensing > fees to implement are, for obvious reasons, totally incompatible with > the use of free software. If the free/open source software communities > will not be able to rely upon the W3C to pursue royalty-free standards > the question has to be raised whether the support of a new institution > is appropriate. Given my admiration for all the W3C has contributed to > the development of the World Wide Web this would be a tragic > development. > > > Back-door RAND > > If an Advisory Committee Representative to the W3C (each member > organisation of the W3C has an ACR) fails to respond to requests for > patent disclosures by default "they will commit their Member company to > license all Essential Claims needed to implement W3C recommendations on > at least RAND terms. This is true whether any personnel from the Member > company participates in a WG or not." > > This means oversight, negligence or perhaps deception is rewarded by > requiring the commitment to a RAND license rather than a royalty-free > one. If a relevant patent was disclosed at the appropriate time it might > have been worked around, or the working group may have even disbanded. > For members to face a financial incentive to disclose there should be a > deterrent in the form of royalty-free licensing. Few things would be > more lucrative than being entitled to charge RAND fees on an established > W3C web standard though a simple oversight. RAND in Action > > Even though RAND is only a Working Draft and public comment has for the > first time been solicited (and very shortly closes) the W3C has already > begun using RAND in its day-to-day operations. This can be seen in the > recently released Scalable Vector Graphics Standard (SVG 1.0): > http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html > > Apple, IBM, Eastman Kodak and Quark have all only been willing to supply > their intellectual property or potential future intellectual property > under RAND licensing terms. This means that in the event that one of > their patents overlap the SVG specification they have reserved the right > to start charging royalties or set other licensing restrictions upon a > non-discriminatory basis. > > Presently the SVG specification is free to use. The uncovering of a > favourable patent or a legal reinterpretation could change that. For > example it is stated: "Kodak does not believe it currently has any > essential claims that fall within the specification of the > Recommendation as currently understood and interpreted by Kodak for > implementors of SVG. However, Kodak hereby identifies U.S. Patent > 5,459,819 and affirms that in the event that any claim of this patent is > interpreted as an essential claim within the specification of the > Recommendation in its current or later amended form, Kodak agrees to > provide a RAND License as set forth in the previous paragraph." > > The significant change here is that Kodak (as a particular example) are > not giving standards users an assurance that they will be able to > continue to use SVG on a royalty-free basis in the future. A windfall > judgement and we could have a problem of GIF-style proportions--even > though SVG is a W3C sanctioned standard and the company potentially > doing the enforcing helped create the standard for people to freely use > in the first place. Users could feel far more secure that SVG will > remain a free standard if for example Kodak said that in the event that > any claim of their patent is interpreted as an essential claim within > the specification of the Recommendation in its current or later amended > form, Kodak agrees to provide a royalty-free license. > > > What You Can Do > > 1. As a matter of urgency, send a comment to > www-patentpolicy-comment@w... before 30 September 2001. You can check > out the current archive of responses here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/. > 2. Spread the word about this issue as soon as possible. > 3. Ask companies that are members of the W3C to give an undertaking to > only support the development of royalty-free standards. This will > require significant change to the Working Draft of the W3C's Patent > Policy Framework. > 4. Do you have a professional relationship with any of the authors or > companies of the Working Draft? If so it may be appropriate to send a > message to the relevant organisation. These are the listed authors of > the Working Draft: > * Michele Herman, Microsoft, micheleh@m... > * Scott Peterson, Hewlett-Packard, scott_k_peterson@h... > * Tony Piotrowski, Philips, tony.piotrowski@p... > * Barry Rein, Pennie & Edmonds (for W3C), barry@p... > * Daniel Weitzner, W3C/MIT, djweitzner@w... > * Helene Plotka Workman, Apple Computer, plotka@a... > > It is also stated here: http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews that "W3C > Members Apple, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, ILOG, Microsoft, Nortel > Networks, The Open Group, Philips Electronics, Reuters, and Sun worked > on this draft together with W3C Team members." > > Essential Reference > > W3C Patent Policy Framework, W3C Working Draft 16 August 2001: > http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/ > > Backgrounder for W3C Patent Policy Framework: > http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews > > Patent Policy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): > http://www.w3.org/2001/08/16-PP-FAQ > > SVG 1.0 Patent Statements: > http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html > > Notes > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/ > [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/08/patentnews > [4] For example, a scenario where the majority of future web appliances > included this decoding ability in their ROM. >
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|