Ask the W3C's RAND Point Man 251
Danny Weitzner is Director of the World Wide Web Consortium's Technology and Society activities, which means he's in charge of handling reactions to a W3C proposal that would allow "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" (hence "RAND") license fees to be charged for use of W3C-endorsed standards that are covered by patents or other trade restrictions. Many prominent Free Software and Open Source people are firmly against RAND; RMS has even emailed me personally several times, asking me to post a link to this anti-RAND story (in which he is quoted). Slashdot has mentioned this controversy before, because we, too, feel it's important.. But Danny is the person at W3C who is dealing directly with all of this, so he's the person we should question. So ask away, one question per post as usual, and we'll post Danny's answers to 10 of the highest-moderated questions as soon as he gets them back to us.
Why should standards be for sale? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't the idea of charging to use the standards combine the worst features of both? Doesn't doing so severely compromise the respectability of the process?
Re:Why should standards be for sale? (Score:2)
I would rephrase your last question to: Doesn't doing so degrade the results of your process, turning it into something that few if any developers would bother using, thus making the W3C useless?
Why should I consider RAND standards? (Score:2)
As a developer why should I consider using your RAND standards over the proprietary standards of the vendor of my choice? What exactly would be the difference? Many proprietary standards don't even require a fee.
I can understand why some of the organizations that make up the W3C would be interested in RAND standards. After all, it allows them to use the W3C to shill for their business. New FOOGazo technology is a W3C standard, just $1.95 per download!
Just because this sort of an arrangement is good for the large software development companies with their piles of patents doesn't make it a good thing for the developers that have, up until this point, relied on the W3C for guidance in which standards to use. Most developers that use the W3C guidelines don't work for commercial software companies. We work for corporations that have moved to web development because it is an easy way to cut costs. That being the case, why would you alienate your users by pushing RAND standards?
Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
(Then again, there is Windows. Never mind.)
Colloborative work rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you feel that this is a "cheat" for anyone who helped devise a standard that is not part of the W3C?
I also feel the W3C will find this ultimately counter productive to it's purpose. People don't like to have to pay licenses to conform to a standard that their end-users and target audiences don't know about. jimbob@aol.com really isn't going to know the difference between a W3C-certified site and one that isn't, and I can't imagine most people paying for a standards system that does not add any value to the experience.
Solving all problems (Score:2)
It seems to me that most opponents of the current proposal would be satisfied if there was some guarantee that all non-free specs could be implemented in free software without paying royalties. Free software would require an irreversible license like the GPL, so that code cannot be turned into proprietary products which would escape the royalty radar. This would easily allow implementations of all new W3C-coordinated specifications in open-source software, while you would have to pay royalties for closed-source, commercial software.
I can see no reason not to do that, other than hidden interests. So why don't you do it?
Re:Solving all problems (Score:3, Insightful)
A better solution would be that if RAND was to be used that the only licensing that can be done is a significantly small fraction ( < 1% ) of the total sales from the product, with maybe a maximum cap for things on the order of Photoshop. That is, for 0.5% 'licensing fee', your GPL software makes $0.00 profit, so that the licensing would be 0%. Your shareware author sells his program for $25 would pay $0.12 per copy, and your major web-publishing package at $200 would be $1/copy. Obviously, there's questions about resells (Redhat in the case of GPL/Linux programs, for example), but this solution is, IMO, still in the spirit of RAND without threatening the free and open nature of the web.
Re:Solving all problems (Score:1)
I do not say that preset fees are less changeable, but notion of percents is just too vague, and I would feel it will be more liek a tax than anything else.
p.
Re:Solving all problems (Score:2)
I believe that the shareware funding model would work just as well for open source software, it is just usually not used (almost no shareware for Linux). True shareware, IMHO, doesn't limit functionality in any significant fashion anyway. What we really need is wide-spread, super-easy secure electronic micropayments. Then we can implement greater reciprocity in the already existing gift culture.
Therefore, I think that freeing GPL-type software from royalties would be a good thing and not negatively impact shareware authors, only motivate many of them to change their development model (and possibly their OS).
abuse of fees and rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
Examples of abuse that I would want to avoid include the Fiasco with the licensing fees for implementing .GIF files many years AFTER they became a standard, and the recent action by MS to enforce a two year upgrade cycle for use of their software in businesses, when many companies are much more comfortable with a three or four year upgrade cycle. (ZDNet has had several articles critical in the extreme of that action)
I would very much prefer the situation to be similar, say, to domain name registration, where many parties can provide that service.
standards vs patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents on the other hand aren't standards in my opinion. Commercial companies have traditionally been the ones pushing for patents and when they obtain one, they charge users of it a license fee.
A lot of patents are very useful and deserve to be standards, but I feel they should have the fees removed before it can be called a 'standard.' The patent can still stand after something has been standardized, but I dont think people should be charged to use it.
What's your call on opinions like mine that are carried by many individuals here at slashdot?
Re:standards vs patents (Score:3, Insightful)
The GIF standard is free; you can use it without any problems without paying anyone anything, except that it does a funny thing with the data such that, if you use the non-free LZW algorithm on your data first, the file is smaller.
For SVG, the standard is similarly free, but in order to actually follow one of the steps legally, you have to sue Apple for patent fraud.
So you don't have to pay to use the standard. You have to pay to do the things that the standard tells you to do. It's like a user's manual that says, "buy some batteries".
I agree with what you're thinking, though: it's important for our standards to not require the purchase of other stuff, especially when the required stuff is only available from a single source or possibly not available at all (i.e., if you need a piece of software that doesn't exist for your computer). But this is distinct from a different possibility for standards: the standard itself could require a license. For example, the unicode standard has a license which prohibits further distribution (essentially so that old versions don't hang around, I think). There are standards where the document itself is not available for free. But that's not what the W3C policy is about.
A bit naive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that statement at best naive? The Internet and Web were originally designed with the idea of free and open communication. Today, there are powerful forces that would like to see open communication closed down and the Web turned over entirely to commercial pursuits. If a RAND policy is adopted for Web standards, won't the next move by those commercial entites be to create as many propriatry standards as possible and force them on the entire Web community (using hammers such as DMCA), like it or not?
sPh
Re:A bit naive? (Score:1)
Pan
Re:A bit naive? (Score:1)
I don't think so. The Internet as we know it was built up from a government project that would allow it(the government) to communicate if and when an a-bomb was dropped and telephone communique was destroyed. The Internet now-days is a commercal-zone for company propaganda and misinformation. Sad, isn't it?
Re:A bit naive? (Score:2)
sPh
Re:A bit naive? (Score:2)
You are seriously oversimplifying things. Nobody is saying they have to agree with Stallman. But many people DO believe that Internet standards should be accessible to everyone. Attaching fees to standards would make that impossible. But I guess you believe that nobody cares about such fees except us whiners on /.
Re:A bit naive? (Score:2)
sPh
Who will define 'reasonable'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why follow other standards bodies? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the strongest criticisms of organizations such as ISO and ITU is that they charge exhorbitant fees to even read, much less implement, their standards. Some government entites have even gone so far as to incorporate proprietary standards into laws, such that individuals have to right to read the laws that they can be jailed for violating (e.g. Veeck vs. City of Austin).
The Web and Internet have always been unique in having their standards freely available for review and implementation. Is is a good thing for W3C to seek to emulate the "closed source" standards bodies?
sPh
May not apply (Score:2)
Veeck vs. City of Austin (Score:2)
On the surface, this appears to be a terrible situation.
If you read a little further into the case, it doesn't seem like miscarriage of justice.
SBCCI and the like are non-profit corporations that earn money by publishing building standard codes. Cities then buy copies of the codes, and incorporate them into law, which is much easier than creating huge volumes of building codes by oneself.
You're allowed to look at the building codes for free; you can go to the city office. You can even make copies there. However, you're not allowed to publish copies the building code.
Do a web search to find out more about this case.
At any rate, that situation doesn't apply to what we're discussing with the W3C. The building codes themselves aren't proprietary... anyone is allowed to build a building according to the code.
Re:Veeck vs. City of Austin (Score:2)
Well, that would be a long discussion, and my lunch hour is ending ;-)
Basically, I have done many web searches, and I have looked into the facts of the case.
Baldly put, a government is that entity in human affirs which reserves for itself the right to kill humans in the name of justice.
Less dramatically, building code departments have the effect of confisciting property without due process.
So it is very important that the operations of governments and building code departments be open to extreme public scrutiny. Having the full text of a building code being a private, propritary document does not meet these requirments.
Let's say I want to build a web side opposing the politics of the local Contractors Association and their cozy relationship with the elected officials. To do this I need to quote from the building code. Can I do so if the code is copyrighted? Under DMCA? I guess not.
That's MHO.
sPh
Re:Veeck vs. City of Austin (Score:2)
As far as I can see, W3C standards are analogous to building codes (although there is no statutory enforcement organization - yet), so I guess I am missing your point.
sPh
Re:Veeck vs. City of Austin (Score:3, Informative)
The city of Naperville, Illinois (for many years the fastest growing community in the US, although they have finally run out of room) writes its own plumbing code. In theory, you are free to go read it at City Hall. In practice (a) what is kept at City Hall is the revisions to the original code, rumoured to have been written in 1915 and to still exist, but which no one has ever seen (b) the actual documents are kept locked in the 3rd subbasement of the building, and can be retrieved the 3rd Tuesday of any month with an "R" in it (c) when you ask to see the code, your name is written down in a big book (d) a week later, the building inspector shows up at your house and does a top-to-bottom inspection (e) if you hire a plumbing contractor licensed by the City, no such inspection occurs. Guess who the largest contributors to local election campaigns are?
So you see there might be some reasons why it is important for citizens to be able to re-publish their own laws.
And that's just a plumbing code - it has nothing to do with National Security - yet!
sPh
Re:Why follow other standards bodies? (Score:2)
So if they limit access, then they are denying the standardness.
Re:Why follow other standards bodies? (Score:2)
>having their standards freely available for
>review and implementation. Is is a good thing
>for W3C to seek to emulate the "closed source"
>standards bodies?
I would even add, that this the very essence of the Internet, this is what has made it different from all the other networks before "Open standards", this what has given it it's critical mass.
The simplest definitin I know of the Internet is :
Internet = Open Standards.
Two questions (I know, not fair.) (Score:5, Insightful)
1. How can you have non-discriminatory licensing from platform vendors? If Microsoft charges itself a $25 license fee and offers the technology to everyone else for the same $25, that is not non-discriminatory. For Microsoft, it's merely account-shuffling. For everyone else, it's out-of-pocket.
2. Why support fiefdoms with RAND? Why not refuse to even consider any standard that the submitters have not already agreed to license freely for Web use (ie, even if they have patents, you have secured free use) and to indemnify the W3C and Web users against any claims by patent holders whose patent applications the submitters were aware of?
What pressure? (Score:2)
They had a good stand not using patents, but lots of pressure wares you down after a while.
What pressure are we talking about here? I assume you mean large software corps pressuring them. What do the corps have as leverage though? Why can't the W3C just tell them to take a flying leap?
Re:So What. I can anwer both. (Score:2)
I aks because you are completely correct. A platform provider does not pay itself. That means it is impossible for a platform provider to charge a royalty in a non-discriminatory way.
This is normal IP fare, and, so far as it goes, ok. Blessing such a thing as an internet or web standard is another matter. One should not create standards that, by their nature, tilt the web in a single vendor's direction.
Re:So What. I can anwer both. (Score:2)
I agree. As you pointed out, this discussion is about the appropriateness of the W3C blessing proprietary technologies licensed on a royalty basis. In that context, it's hard to live up to the "ND".
Open Source and Royalties (Score:2, Interesting)
While perhaps the "free beer" aspect of open source can coexist with some royalty arrangement (let's say royalties cannot exceed 1% of sales and sales = 0 is allowed), how do you think you can resolve the "free speech" aspect? What kind of open source license will be required for any software built on top of the standard?
Fork in Standards? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the RAND patent proposal is adopted by the W3C, there has been much discussion in the open source/free software community about forking the standards process, to preserve patent-free web standards. This fork would create a new standards body as a competitor to the W3C.
Re:Fork in Standards? (Score:2)
Re:Fork in Standards? (Score:2)
Re:Just what we need more fragmentation... (Score:2)
Can you define "non-descriminatory"? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example which, if any, of the following examples would be non-descriminatory?
A) Fixed per-unit licensing costs. Let's say, for example, $1.00 per unit shipped. While this would be non-descriminatory in some senses, it would also prohibit free software and hence be descriminatory in other ways.
B) Licensing fees only for non-free software. While this method would not descriminate against open source, it could be seen as "descriminating" against closed-source software since they would be the only ones paying licensing fees.
C) Percent-of-price fees. For example, 5% of the price of shipped units. This would seem to be fair since the same licensing terms would apply to everyone, but in practice it would be similar to B) and hence seen as descriminatory.
D) Free for everyone to use. This would seem to be the only license which cannot be viewed as descriminating against someone. On the other hand, I'm fairly certain that this is not what is intended when the W3C uses the term "RAND".
Any insight into this would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure.
And besides, why do it in the first place? (Score:2)
Standards Policing (Score:3, Interesting)
No other company will implement the standard and pay a royalty to the original company who can turn around and break the standard (or possibly change it) for whatever reason.
Why do you think anybody cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Netscape and IE are the de facto standards bodies these days; the browser wars are over and the days when standards were needed are over too. Apart from a gang of standards barrack-room lawyers going "Oh, I use WebFart 2000 because it's standards compliant blah blah blah", nobody cares anymore.
So my question is; why are you giving up the last shred of self-respect you might have had as a lobby group against the encroachment of the IE monopoly as a de facto standard, by turning yourself into a shill group for the same bunch of corporate interests? To preserve the fig-leaf of the "importance of standards"? Isn't that rather like destroying the village to save it?
RAND (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure that you are aware of the fact that the internet as we all know and love/hate it was developed by free and open source software.
Certain commercial developers, have been trying to convert the internet from, "...the greatest democratizing medium..." (ACLU vs. Reno) into yet another commercial morass where they can reap the maximum profit from the unsuspecting populous.
Given that, why would the W3C even concieve of a proposition that favors corporate purse strings over the greater good of the common man, and the internet itself?
We have seen governments try to regulate what we can say (CDA, CDA II, COPA), corporations what we can do (DMCA, SSSCA, DRM) and even ICANN with the warped sense of justice embodied in its UDRP. Does the common internet user now have to be leery of standards bodies like the W3C, which appears to favor corporate interests?
Something Else Going on... (Score:1)
My guess is that Microsoft or Sun may be the culprit. They want to own a standard, and will apply pressure to whoever it takes to succeed.
Danny, is there something going on behind the scenes that brought this proposal forth?
With the US govt, isn't this a waste of time? (Score:2)
I mean, look, MSFT gave more money to Bush than Gore, and bought the election. Combine that with Disney's work on extending copyright terms, and biotech/pharmaceutical work on extending patent terms, and it seems as if the W3C can say anything it wants and the US will just torpedo it, so that the patent and license holders can squeeze more revenue.
A case in point, WinXP and MSFT Select licensing terms which double (or triple) costs for consumers.
So why bother?
Define "reasonable." (Score:5, Interesting)
Since all of our standards apply to hardware with well-understood costs of manufacture, the royalty structure most often adopted is "fixed percent of OEM price." This is a necessity in a market where semiconductor prices drop with Moore's Law, and a trivial royalty one day dominates the price the next.
In software terms, the same terms would be "fixed percent of sale price." The astute reader will observe that this allows continued distribution of free (gratis) software w/o royalty encumberance, even if it causes RMS to break out in a rash.
The alternatives, as we've already seen, can be as extreme as one-time charges in the millions of dollars. For Microsoft, able to amortize a flat-fee across hundreds of millions of units, the royalty would indeed be "reasonable." For Joe Startup, it would be prohibitive.
So, my question: what prospects do we have that RAND will be clarified, preferably with guidelines such as "percent of ASP," but at least with exclusion of abominations such as flat-fee?
Still won't help free software (Score:2)
As RMS will no doubt point out, "free" means "not encumbered", not "at no cost". If you have to pay money to someone else to sell a copy of this software, it's encumbered and therefore not "free" in the FSF meaning of the word.
Good piece of lateral thinking, though.
Re:Define "reasonable." (Score:2)
That's the whole point, my friend - any RAND structure based on price would allow free software to use those standards, regardless of who it hit on the bottom line. For example, say RedHat used a Microsoft patened standard in it's ditribution of Linux. If people downloaded the RedHat software for free (us lucky broadband users) then no fee applies. If someone pays for a boxed set of RH CDs, well, then Microsoft is owed the normal usage fee on that copy.
Fee/copy sold would work, since is wouldn't really discrminate against those who couldn't afford to use the standard otherwise, or those enjoined by licensing to allow free downloads of thier distributions.
One other thing - it would be very cool if the RAND agreement allowed companies to say something like "We used this patened standard in this package, licensing fees are X% of the purchase price". That would keep the fees at a reasonable level for sure.
Soko
Re:Define "reasonable." (Score:2, Insightful)
Hypothetical:
1) M$ armtwists/rams a patent encumbered standard down W3C, promising royalty-free use etc. etc.
2) M$ waits several years for wide adoption.
3) M$ hits up everyone for royalties, especially free software projects.
Now tell me why M$ wouldn't do this.
Do you really think they give a shit what W3C RAND guidelines would say? AFAICT the W3C guidelines are not legally binding , but patents have the force of federal law behind them.
Ok, so M$ gets kicked out of W3C. Too late, the patent encumbered standard is too entrenched. They have everyones balls in a vise.
Read the halloween document again, then tell me with a straight face they wouldn't do this.
Also keep in mind M$'s flagrant disregard for federal law...
W3C Conflicts Of Interest? (Score:1)
In early August, Curl Corporation gained 500,000 potential users via their agreement [yahoo.com]with adisoft AG.
Does Tim's Curl investment [w3.org], which is in fact disclosed on the W3C site, concern you?
Widening the Digitial Divide? (Score:1)
Net and RAND (Score:2)
As a business, the risk of using patented standards is very real, even with RAND terms, because RAND is open to debate (aka litigation), and the cost of litigation often means it's better to settle for not quite RAND than full RAND. Open source recognizes that, and is unlikey to EVER start encumbering software with even RAND terms.
Why does the W3C feel so powerless to simply require companies to disclose and allow full and free use of any patented technologies they have? Is it because these groups are mainly made UP of companies, who can't see the forest for the individual money trees they all are hoping to grow? Is there so little recongition in the idea of the common good, we all sacrifice a little to win a lot?
And what quality are these patents? BT has patented hyperlinks after all, Altavista claims almost all search technology. Symantic auto-updates from web and the list goes on. Do we want to reward this crap?
How strongly will the W3C enforce terms? It's easy to squash litigation at the root by dis-allowing RAND. No muss no fuss. But once the barn door is open and companies are stampeding for the cash, is the W3C going to stand up for developers to insure full RAND?
Finally, as a solution to endless discusion over patents, RAND seems like a poor choice. A strong patent free record, and a commitment to future full and free standards would seem to eliminate that area of debate more than opening the door to the cash jackpot would. Why is there not more of a focus on reducing the time spent on the legal BS angle rather than encouraging it with RAND?
Question (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me that adding royalties to the cost of writing software that interoperates with other W3C software is a specific threat to this sort of development, because what may be "reasonable and non-discriminatory" to a $100M business may be thoroughly out-of-reach and prohibitively expensive for 4 college students working on their senior project. As a result, rather than invigorating development, adding royalties would seem to slow it down by denying the ability to develop to the very people who have gotten us to where we are today. What mechanisms are there in the proposal to protect the ability of those who have been producing high-quality freeware to continue to do so?
What about patents that only exist in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
standards, what are they going to do about
patents that only exist in the promiscuous US
patent system and would never be granted in
other countries. Or even the other way around.
Won't that turn the world wide web into a us only
web or at least split it into lots of separate
entities?
International and Third World ramifications (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't patent encumbrance of W3C standards constitute another barrier to entry for poorer nations?
Even if we are willing to give them all copies of some proprietary web browser, aren't we still standing in the way of their developing their own technical expertise, because they won't have access to and use of the source code.
Doesn't it come across just a little like (Pardon the inflammatory language, but it exaggerates the argument appropriately.) fat Western capitalist pigs trying to keep the Third World down?
Some clarification? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm concerned that this will require small developers to fight tooth and nail each time a new and further reaching idea of "standards" comes up.
We need open standards (Score:5, Insightful)
People from the W3C have "acknowledged" that the Internet's growth has been due to open standards.
This isn't not even half the story. The Internet would not exist without open standards promoted by bodies like the IETF and W3C (until now).
In the 1980's and early 1990's there were a number of network protocols in use: DECNet, VINES, NETBIOS/NETBEUI (shudder), IPX/SPX, SNA, and more. None of them initially would have been as scalable as TCP/IP, however, if any of them had been truly open, it might have been possible to fix them.
But none of those other protocols were open... and where are they now? Nowhere.
It's the same situation for hypertext protocols. People and companies have proposed substantial improvments onto existing protocols. A notable example of this is Hyper-G, which was then commercialized by Hyperwave.com. It fixes a lot of problems with navigation, and stuff like broken links. However, there was never a free and open implementation, and so it has languished in obscurity for the last 5 years.
My question to the W3C is this: Do they have any evidence that proprietary protocols will foster continued growth of the Internet and the applications that run on top of it?
Maybe it's good. (Score:2)
Seriously though, if any person is going to devote a good chunk of his time/life to developing a solid architecture that millions of people are going to use to make thier lives easier, shouldn't they be compensated? Standards are great, they're needed to get everybody on the same page. Have a million instant messaging programs is great, but not if they can't talk to one another. You can't get caught up in thinking that if its a standard, you should have every right to slap your own interface on top of it. A standard is something that has been well thought and discussed and determined to be the best solution for a specific task at the present time. People put work into these things. MP3 is a standard, yet you still have to pay Fraunhoffer (probably spelled incorrectly).
I'm sure there's a lot of people out there that would give away their time just for the recognition, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't become jealous of people that choose money instead of an eternal reference in that "Thanks to" section of somebody's code comments.
Re:Maybe it's good. (Score:2)
I suppose it's only fair to let the Microsoft astroturfers have their say too, though it would show a shred of moral integrity if you declared your affiliation.
Re:Maybe it's good. (Score:2)
Ok though, I'll declare my "affiliation":
I'm a human being, living on planet earth, in America specifically. My only affiliation is myself. I can think on my own without having to blindly join a group of fanatics, be it Windows, Linux or Mac.
Re:Maybe it's good. (Score:2)
Honestly, what new standard would you propose that is going to be the next killer app of the internet that relies on open standards?
There will be a natural response is the W3C implements licensing fees. Big corporations will latch on and implement the standards, while small groups will create their own open standards to compete. Ahem, notice the similarities between other centerpieces of
Let them implement licensing fees and then just argue about inidividal standards when authors push for fees. It's really ironic: everybody complains that there's no competition because corporations have everybody locked into standards, in the same breath they complain that there is too much competion and there's no standard.
Re:Maybe it's good. (Score:2)
Arghh, capitalism! I must religiously defend the ideals of Slashdot in that we should not have to pay for anything, that Bill Gates is Satan himself, and therefore any actions taken to promote the exchange of money is controlled by Microsoft and therefore is evil!
Does that about sum up your attitude. Think for yourself. Corporations pay employees. Employees have families to support and their own bills to pay. The corporations need to survive in order to pay the employees. Maybe the hundred thousand jobs lost in the last couple months haven't opened your eyes up to that yet. Yes, the rich become richer, but it continues to pay for many other people that aren't rich, and that outweighs the petty ideals of a ragtag group of open source programmers.
This really shouldn't even be an issue. If open source is so powerful and has such a large community, then develop your own standards? Somehow I don't think that will happen
Re:Maybe it's good. (Score:2)
Competition = GOOD
Standards = GOOD
This doesn't mean that you can have both in a given situation. Let corporations patent all the stuff they want. Everybody has a right to create their own solution.
Let me give you this example though, and tell me what your answer is. If corporation A comes up and says they have this great piece of technology that can give 10x lossless compression in data transfers. That would definitely help internet traffic, and in turn help hundreds of millions of people. Should that not be a standard, so that as many people as possible can use it? Should that corporation give their formulas away for free, or should they be rewarded?
Re:Maybe it's good. (Score:2)
You example doesn't involve somebody slipping patents into standards, it involves MS coding thier site to work with one particular browser.
It's not as though some weasel is going to "sneak" anything into W3C standards. And I suppose the standard will be formally released and used, and then this guy will jump out and say "gotcha!".
Have you noticed (Score:2)
(a) Listen to the voice of reason, as expressed in these emails; or
(b) Ignore the public interest, and try to force RAND down our throats?
Where did RAND come from? (Score:2)
Why and how did the W3C come upon the idea to implement RAND? What are the benefits to the W3C for having such a standards mechanism? Are these benefits the cause for the RAND proposal being essentially fast-tracked through your organisation? What individuals/organisations/corporations proposed said mechanism to the W3C?
Finally, have you read Alan Cox's opinion on this matter [w3.org]? What is your response?
Thanks in advance,
-Mani.
Simple question (Score:2)
Will any commons be protected? (Score:3, Interesting)
The greatest danger is if fees are allowed for standards which become incorporated into whatever the major browsers happen to be a few years from now, and it becomes impossible to present Web content/communications which integrates smoothly and 'professionally' with those browsers without effectively being taxed. This would be a Microsoft-style licensing scheme extended across most of the Net. It would be like a 'free press' in which dissenting opinions could be published - but only on mimeograph machines.
Keep in mind, you're not talking about creating new technologies, but about which iteration of an existing concept should be standardized on. There is always an 'open' route available to a desired end. Should selection of standards be allowed to effectively tax the many for the few? Why pave the road towards such a future?
RAND Serves the Wrong People (Score:3, Insightful)
- The web was started by, and is still largely compromised of, people who don't earn a dime for their work. Independent web sites, universities, etc., do not usually make a profit from their sites. Forcing them to pay royalties would essentially be the equivalent of a cease-and-desist.
- Not everyone is in a position to pay royalties. Groups in our country, let alone other countries, are still being introduced to the web. Royalties would only deter them. Not to mention that only a few countries actually *recognize* the types of patents which RAND would try to enforce.
- Surely this would apply to the US federal government. If suddenly they have to pay royalties for their myriad of websites, where is that money going to come from? US Taxpayers, like you and I.
- What may be reasonable to some, is not reasonable to others. This has been noted already, but what may be a "fair" fee to a company like Microsoft would not be a "fair" fee to myself, a freelance developer.
- If the W3C becomes a group that tries to enforce royalties on existing web standards, their plan will backfire, and alternate standards (not to mention groups!) will crop up. Not only could this be the end of the internet as we know it, but it would be the end of the W3C as an established leadership that we try to follow.
Plain & Simple: RAND would not serve those that started and continue to develop the internet. Passing RAND will have disastrous consequences.Patents suck, but they still exist (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't ever know if an idea is the subject of a USPTO patent application
In every other civilized country you can tell if a patent has been applied for on an invention. In the US the PTO encourages patent ambushes. The 'inventor' applies for a patent, then works to get their idea adopted in a standard. There is no means whatsoever by which the standards body can check to see if their spec is encumbered.
The USPTO excuse is that an inventor should not have to reveal their trade secrets when they apply for a patent, thus risking the loss of trade secret protection if the patent is denied. This argument is utterly bogus, as is evidenced by the fact that every other PTO has a public review period. The real reason the USPTO hates the idea is that they would have to do respond to the objections filled which would be a lot more expensive than their current policy of grant everythin that isn't a perpetual motion machine.
Someone can read the draft standard and apply for a patent on it
This happens quite frequently. The most eggregious case being applying for a continuation of an existing patent application, thus gaining the benefit of a filling date that was prior to anybody on earth including the 'inventor' having invented the invention. One of the worst cases of this scam being the Lemelson patent claim covering bar codes which everyone agrees he had absolutely nothing to do with the invention of.
The USPTO grants ridicuolously overbroad patents which are obvious to a novice in the art.
The chopped logic the PTO uses to defend their negligence is that the legal 'standard' for 'obvious' is not that of English but a different language called patenteese. However when the value of granting 20 year monopolies for trivial inventions is attacked the USPTO immediately asserts that patents are not granted for 'obvious' inventions. So what is it, is the bar low or high?
What this means for the W3C process is that there are certain areas in which there is no unencumbered solution.
What does W3C do? Should they refuse to allow any work at all in those areas? RMS would certainly prefer that option, however RMS is a fanatic for whom the idea of paying for software for any reason whatsoever is a theological evil.
The IETF has faced this problem in the past, with the RSA/Diffie Hellman patents for example. PEM was not possible without some form of public key crypto and Public Key Partners had the whole field locked up.
The DRM area is pretty much a patent deadlock area. There is no approach that is not encumbered by multiple patents, even those based on thirty year old technology. Go figure what that says about the competence of the USPTO.
Patent policy for companies is hard. I would like nothing better than that software patents be abolished in their entirety, despite owning several of the paradigmatic ones. However given that patents do exist, I can't afford to disarm unless everyone else does. I need my patent collateral in case I need access to someone else's IP.
If you think you have seen this before, you have. It is exactly the same concept as Mutually Assured Destruction.
Re:Patents suck, but they still exist (Score:2)
Good. All the more reason to keep it out of standards.
Re:Patents suck, but they still exist (Score:2)
The consequence of that approach is worse, proprietary control of the content distribution chain.
In Europe Murdoch's Sky TV gained a stranglehold on the satelite TV market through control of the ViaCrypt DRM system.
Murdoch's politics are to support whatever party will suit his financial interests. In Australia he is a Socialist, in the US a screaming conservative. In the UK his support for the Conservative party was probably decisive in their winning the 1992 election 'it was the sun wot won it' one of his tabloids cried. Now Murdoch supports the Labour party but is trying to resist UK entry into the Euro. Like an Australian should be deciding UK monetary policy.
If there is a proprietary DRM system controlled by the record labels their control over artists will be reinforced instead of abolished.
Murdoch's a US citizen (Score:2)
Inaccuracies hurt your (otherwise good) argument (Score:2)
You write >
This is blatantly untrue; RMS himself made his living for years by selling software for money. In the early days of emacs he survived by charging for copies of it on (presumably) floppy disks, and I believe you can still buy CDs of "the GNU system" from the FSF.
RMS has plenty of faults that can be criticized, and can certainly be legitimately described as a fanatic. But argue with what he actually says, not with strawmen.
On an unrelated note... you write:
>
How about offering a "public license" on your patents? Something like the following, with appropriate legalese:
"You may use this patented technology in any product, provided that you make publically available all other patents used in the same product, either under the same terms as this license or on a royalty-free and nondiscriminatory basis. If you do not have permission to do this for all other patents used in the product, you may not use this patented technology at all."
Offering the above license would seem to preserve the patent for use defensively, while still permitting its use in Free Software *and* promoting the use of the same license by other people. It would be kind of a GPL for patents. What do you think?
Drat, should have used preview (Score:2)
Re:Inaccuracies hurt your (otherwise good) argumen (Score:2)
For the past ten (fifteen?) years RMS has been living in his office at 545 Tech Square. The most appropriate term to describe him is a techno-hippy.
I did not make the claim that RMS's position on paying for software was consistent, far from it. So identification of an inconsistency between RMS's behavior and his theology does not contradict my argument. My point is that RMS is an absolutist and his opposition to any attempt to compromise with reality on the issue can be taken as inevitable.
On the open license front, we have put significant IP into the public domain recently. As for licensing our patents, the problem there is that the license you suggest is not compatible with Royalty Free.
Re:Patents suck, but they still exist (Score:2)
Perhaps a standards body should automatically file a claim on the standard at the same time as it publishes the first draft. And then file ammended applications with each change. This would at least establish priority. I have no idea how expensive it would be.
But a standard must be publically accessible, or it isn't a standard. Something can only be a standard if it's the default way to do something, and that's only possible if it doesn't cost anything. Anything. And if there aren't any limitations on it's usage.
Unfortunately, in the case of submarine patents, this conflicts with another requirement which is that it must be permanently available (not subject to withdrawal). And if someone chooses to fight the validity of a patent this could throw the standard into limbo for years.
I find the whole concept of patenting a standard to verge on the edge of incomprehensibility, but if I compare it to adverse possession, and other forms of theft, it makes a bit of logistic, if not moral, sense.
It's a pity that the people who created this morass can't be prosecuted for malfeasance. (I think that's the right term. I don't think that misfeasance covers it. Things couldn't have been setup and done this badly by accident, though just how much was intentional would be quite difficult to determine.)
What services will likely require RAND terms? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you give some examples of these "higher-level services," and characterize the extent that W3C has already provided recommendations in these areas? Would work on standards for higher-level services requiring RAND terms be considered an expansion in the scope of typical W3C activites to date? Under this proposal could RAND terms end up applying to "core" and "lower-level" services as well?
Conceptual problem (Score:2)
If a technology is truly deserving of a patent, then we shouldn't need standards for its use: the patent will instruct us in the use of the technology, and there won't be any alternatives.
If there are implementation details that need be specified, then the patent holder--as both the owner and the beneficiary of the patent--should specify them, as Phillips did for the audio cassette format, and Sony did for the CD format.
If a technology isn't truly innovative; if it shouldn't have been patented in the first place, but it was, because, well, because the U.S. patent system is broken, then there will be other ways to solve the problem. In this case, we need a standard to specify which of the available alternatives we will use. Obviously, we should choose an alternative which is not patented.
In short, a standards body should regard patents as damage, and route around them.
- SWM
Make up of the RAND committee? (Score:5, Interesting)
The W3C is setting up a standard which will potentially harm many free software projects, yet is not giving that side any true voice in the drafting committee. I find it hard to believe that this was not a deliberate decision driven by corporate interests.
This attitude is sad, short sighted, and at the very least ungrateful. It avoids acknowledging the extent to which the free software world has contributed to the very existence and success of the internet as we know it.
How can any for-cost standard be non-discrim? (Score:3, Insightful)
Open source and free software is very common on the web today-- free browsers, servers, and anything else vaguely connected to the web and the internet are very widely used.
The very distribution terms of free software make them fundamentally incompatable with any standard whose licensing requires a fee. Some licenses explicitly forbid the use of algorithms burdened by patents, while others may "just" face the practical problem that the software is widely distributed for no charge, and often isn't even written by a for-profit company.
Given the prevalance and importance of free and open source software on the Web, and given the fundamental incompatability of such software with a standard that requires any licensing fee, how can any such standard be called "reasonable and non-discriminatory"? How would the W3C argue that any "RAND" standards at all requiring licensing fees do not descriminate against a large and important fraction of the web sofwtare out there today, specifically free and open-source software? (This is not a rhetorical question-- I really want to know what the W3C would say in answer to this latter question.)
-Rob
w3c mission (Score:2, Insightful)
" 1. Interoperability: Specifications for the Web's languages and protocols must be compatible with one another and allow (any) hardware and software used to access the Web to work together.
".
my question is this:
if the RAND measure passes, will it affect this statement?
How will RAND make human society better? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to know, both from a W3C standpoint, and from your own personal belief, how you feel that RAND will improve human society. Also, do you feel that it is befitting a standards organization to approve a standard that is patented?
Which is more important in such a case, that the patent is honored, which could kill the standard or even cause hardship for those who can't afford it, or that the standard is released royalty free so that all of humanity can benefit? How do you reconcile this statement with W3C's role in society?
Thanks,
Jim McCracken
A simple question... (Score:2)
Neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory (Score:2)
In fact, standards which require royalty payments discriminate against a group that has been and continues to be instrumental in the creation and growth of the Internet, and a group which powers many aspects of the Internet today, namely the Open Source or Free Software community.
In my opinion, one of the core tests for a proposed standard should be whether it can be implemented under an Open Source license such as the GNU Public License. The fact that HTTP was such a standard permitted the creation of the Apache web server which, according to a recent Netcraft survey, provides 60% of all websites on the Internet, over twice that of its closest rival, Microsoft (see http://www.netcraft.com/survey/).
By endorsing "RAND" standards, the W3C is acting as little more than a business development department for the corporation to whom royalties must be paid - and this is completely inappropriate for an organization whose goal is to "lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability".
I would be very interested in your response to this viewpoint.
Ian Clarke
Coordinator - The Freenet Project
Chief Technology Officer - Uprizer Inc.
Are you aware of those simple facts ? (Score:2)
1) The Free/Open Source community is the best, and most sincere standard supporter and W3C allied
2) Patents are NOT compatible with Free/Open Source software ? plain and simple ! there is no known way to avoid that.
3) Hence if RAND is adopted, the Free/Open Source community, will have no choice but fork the standard which contain patented materiel, or even worse, will create a rival organisation ? which will be very bad for the Web, or will be those which probably prevail in the end, as the history of the Net has proved that many times.
What are the realistic outcomes? (Score:2)
Why accept W3C "standards"? (Score:2)
Why should W3C "standards" be given any credence if they aren't standards? Why should not some other body be created, that would build genuine standards? How would this be worse than accepting an arbitrarily imposed (from the developers point of view) limitation?
Corporations vs. Free Software, round 1 (Score:3, Interesting)
<rant>The Internet is built on lots of computers who happen to run agreed-upon protocols. These changes seem to want to fracture the 'net from the open standards it was built upon to proprietary 'nets. Also, the biggest proponent of interoperability standards and 'net cohesion is the open source community, who ensures that their software will work with the many pre-existing 'net standards or that their new standards are available for all to use freely. Please tell me that I'm not overreacting when I say that the W3C's first priority should be to the open source community, interoperability, and the standards which have kept the net running from its creation and not to the pockets of the members of the W3C.</rant>
t.
The issue might as weel be slavery (Score:2)
One of the unstated but vehement reasons for objections to such developments as the W3C RAND proposal, I feel, is the intuition that they demand a "previous condition of servitude" as a prerequisite for full and proper participation in the Internet. How do you answer those whose unstated gut response is that RAND would demand that they enslave themselves to the patent owners before they might use the Internet?
License Incompatibility (Score:2)
W3C analysis of patent claims (Score:2)
Do you agree that W3C should include this type of extra information in any Recommendation that depends on RAND patents (I prefer to call them UFAD for unfair and discriminatory, though)?
Too Late (Score:2)
Originally, the comment period was extended by 11 days because 90% of the comments were submitted on the last day. It seems there wasn't much public advertising of the original public comment period, or the importance of the proposed changes. By luck, Adam Warner noticed what was going on and sounded the alarm on the 3rd-to-last day. There was no time to do any deep research. Most people just said NO with varying degrees of eloquence. Now we're 3 days away from the end of the newly extended period and still, very few people have been able to take the time to really do their research, let alone engage in any kind of constructive dialog.
If you think this is all a little unfair, you can let the W3C know, here [mailto]. You've got two more days, please do a little research.
Why does the W3C need its own revenue stream? (Score:2, Interesting)
A Consortium is a group of entities/people/companies/whatever consorting/sharing/talking/discussing things. If the W3C started charging, it would be its own entity with interests to protect, and members would no longer have the same motivation for participation. Things would be different, but how?
Have the original reasons for involvement in the W3C been reviewed and rejected? What is the justifying logic in the W3C charter and how does that play into the fees issue?
Membership, constituency and stake-holders (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that this is the key to the current problem, and illustrates that fixing the current problem - the incompatibility betwen RAND licensing and open source software - won't fix the underlying problem and this sort of hting will keep on occurring.
This raises a number of questions for me:
RAND and international issues? (Score:2, Interesting)
How will the W3C approach this issue?
I realize there's an international code on dealing with patents but as far as I'm aware software patents have not yet been tested in this arena.
but I neither a lawyer nor a US citizen. And most issues around this so far has seemed to me to be US-centric.
Can I have a piece of the action too? (Score:2, Insightful)
What is your procedure for including a patent of mine into the standard?
Do we go 50/50, or do you normally take a bigger cut?
I'm willing to go 80/20 in your favour, but only this if you can make it a key part of the standard so we can fleece a whole lot of people.
I don't currently have a patent, nor any good ideas, but that doesn't really matter, does it?
One more question, how do you deal with the men with nice suits and Italian accents trying to muscle into your turf?
Payment is automatically discriminatory (Score:2, Interesting)
My background, however, is as a student, and then volunteer involved in learning about, experimenting with, and deploying solutions using Internet related technologies. I first used the Internet in 1992, when I was a student at the University of Cape Town, on a VAX. When I first got access to Unix, it was PS2/AIX on an IBM PS/2 - hardly the most standard of platforms! An experience I still appreciate was being able to get help from the Internet at no cost, either in the form of conversations, or by referring to standards.
Soon after becoming familiar with Internet technologies, I got involved in building networks in schools, often 'scavenging' resources from existing school resources, and re-directing them towards fledgling networks, at a time when the utility of these networks was by no means established to the general public. I.e. no budget.
Now, I'm a consultant, I've got all the gadgets including Palm Pilot and credit cards. If necessary, I can pay a small fee to access something online - although the cost of things in US dollars generally stops me from doing this ($1 US = about R 9 right now). So there's discrimination already.
But in those days, I had (almost) no money and I had no credit card. My first decent modem was bought using an elaborate, and expensive, direct transfer of money to Canada, and shipped due to the good intentions of a friend of mine's Canadian prof. It took quite a while to organise, of course.
The reality for Internet developers is that they often want access to the standards, for reference purposes. The reality of developers in Africa is that they often face significant barriers in interaction with the US economy - lack of funds, difficulty in transferring funds, etc.
So, my question: Given the realities of the situation in Africa, and other parts of the world, how can any licensing fee ever be considered 'non-discriminatory'?
Peter
Open Standard Abuse (Score:2)
Why should somebody such as myself continue to contribute (as I have in the past) to ID's/RFC's
for free when in the future I will be charged for using the same standard's I've helped to develop?
New Open Standard Consortium (Score:2)
The W2C currently has mind share amongst developers, because it is open. If it takes this course and goes 'closed' it loses this goodwill and will probably die as a standards body without considerable contributions in resources and finance from the vested proprietary interests. Since proprietary interests are not open by their nature this would be crying shame. I guess we will just have to start another Open Standards Consortium from scratch.
Authors / Sponsors (Score:2)
Michele Herman, lawyer, Microsoft Standards Group.
Scott K. Peterson, lawyer, Hewlett-Packard.
Alan Kotok, associate chairman, W3C.
Carl Cargill, director of standards, Sun Microsystems.
Steve Nunn, lawyer and vice-president corporate resources, The Open Group.
Wanda Cox, scientist engineer global standards, Apple Computer.
W. Mike Deese, director of standards strategy, Microsoft.
Gib Ritenour, director technical standards and patent strategy, Nortel Networks.
Martin Ashton, head of technical due diligence and intellectual property, Reuters plc.
Chuck Adams, standards, IBM.
Jean-Francois Abramatic, chairman, W3C.
Mark DeLuca, IP lawyer and partner, Woodcock Washburn (for Microsoft).
Mari Georges, director of research and development, ILOG S.A.
Toon Groenendaal, Philips Electronics.
Ian Jacobs, computer scientist and author
aifProcess Documentaif, W3C.
Daniel Weitzner, lawyer and director technology and society, W3C.
Glen Johnson, Nortel Networks.
Tony E. Piotrowski, Philips Electronics.
Barry Rein, senior partner, Pennie & Edmonds lawyers (for W3C).
Helene Plotka Workman, Apple Computer.
Re:What (Score:2)