Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

A Call For Cooperation Against Web Patents

Rated 4.21 (Ratings: 2) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(6 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of persist1

Ben Henick

Member info | Full bio

User since: January 23, 2000

Last login: November 10, 2008

Articles written: 9

Those needing background on this matter should read W3C Extends Comment Period for Patent Proposal.

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin, 4 July 1776

Crying in unison for an open Web

I have published an essay suggesting that the W3C needs to hear objective feedback from a wide variety of people if there is to be any hope of mitigating or stopping the possibility that future Web standards will need to be licensed.

We all play a part in marshalling the response.

Most Evolters have a professional interest in the Web. However, there are many others who will be hurt if the W3C Patent Policy Framework continues to chug along without significant changes.

The possiblity of licensing fees being charged for standard Web technologies has become very real, and those fees will have to paid by someone, somehow.

Who will take the hit? The Web depends on participation from a wide variety of people - developers, creatives, software publishers, infrastructure and presence providers, end users, clients, governments, and others.

If you can perceive yourself as belonging to a group that would be negatively affected by licensing requirements for Web standards, post your concerns.

Tell any others who likewise may be affected to do the same.

What it would mean to "hang together..." or "hang separately"

The Web "community" needs to organize in the face of the W3C's actions. The necessary action can be described in stages:

  • First, to try and stop the process;
  • Second, to present a palatable alternative to what is being proposed if the process cannot be stopped;
  • Third, to promote cooperation across the Web "community" in the event that the Patent Policy Framework is approved without significant changes.

The last of these outcomes especially needs to be prepared for. In the event that patented technologies are allowed to be made into W3C Recommendations, four things might happen, singly or in combination:

  • The W3C will be marginalized much as it was during the "Best Viewed With" era of the mid-Nineties;
  • A schism will result as Open Source Software and proprietary software interests create competing technologies;
  • Those asked to foot the bill for licensing will refuse to do so, creating a technology vacuum that a well-coordinated group of Web developers and software developers will be well-situated to fill;
  • Microsoft and other large companies will establish sanctioned monopolies over critical elements of the everyday Web, minimizing further the ability of Web users and developers to "vote with their feet" as a response to inadequate or restrictive software.

I would recommend thelist as an excellent place to organize, and plead that you encourage your friends and colleagues to offer their participation.

What should be "done" with SVG 1.0?

Submitted by pointwood on October 4, 2001 - 03:28.

As far as I understand from the SVG 1.0 recommendation, it already includes 4 RAND licenses. I find it very strange that, even though this is still only a proposal, they have already made a recommendation which includes RAND licenses!

Who dares to use SVG when you don't know if Apple (which is one of the companies) someday will require some kind of payment?

Links:
SVG 1.0 Patent Statements:
http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements.html

login or register to post comments

Remember the flap over GIF?

Submitted by bheerssen on October 4, 2001 - 09:50.

It seems the W3C doesn't. As far as I can tell, they don't care either. While it seems plausible that proprietary formats or protocals could benifit the web, I don't see how including them in core technologies such as SVG could help. At best, a proprietary SVG format should remain outside of the accepted standards for web development - much as other proprietary formats are.

Macromedia's Flash, for example, is perfectly OK in my opinion. This example comes from a single company: there is no pretense that it should be included in any official specification, and hence no undue burden for companies to use it. Those that want to can, and those that don't, don't have to.

The problem with incorporating proprietary technologies in official standards (W3C or otherwise), as I see it, is that governments often rely on direction from an applicable standards body. So, if a proprietary format or protocol were accepted as a standard for, say, accessibility technologies, I could see a government requiring the use of it for all websites - regardless of publisher's ability to produce said technology. Proprietary technologies often require the use proprietary tools to produce them. Flash is a good example of this. What would happen if Flash were suddenly required for all websites in a given country? Well, web firms that do not have the capability to produce Flash animations would suddenly be out of work, and could even be held accountable for previous work, even if they do not have the means to bring that work up to standards. I realize that this is an extreme circumstance, and a very unlikely one at that, but it does illustrate a point.

Open standards have always been the lifeblood of this industry. The W3C's proposal represents an opening salvo in an assault against open standards. If we allow this proposal to become an official recommendation, then surely more attacks will follow and we will be in lesser position to defend against them.

So do your part - tell the W3C what you think. I'm off to do just that right now. I should have done it sooner.

login or register to post comments

Hel-loooo, people...

Submitted by persist1 on October 5, 2001 - 01:55.

It's good that this site is becoming yet another funnel for messages to what seems to have become the W3C Complaints Department.

However, organization is key. The single most important thing that's lacking is a solid proposal where alternatives are concerned... the use of patented technologies on the Web does need to be addressed, and I don't think that the existing proposal will cut the mustard.

However, what can we as developers do to present an alternative? Barring that, can we start a tradition of collaboration with Open Source groups, and try to beat some of the megacorps to the punch on new technologies?

These things are possible... but they haven't been tried yet.

login or register to post comments

A simple solution

Submitted by headlemur on October 8, 2001 - 16:45.

It's pretty simple. If a member wants to contribute something to the cause, great. If they want to license it, show them the door. This is not AMCE Corporation's web, This is your web.

login or register to post comments

Address This

Submitted by urlborg on January 14, 2002 - 07:49.

The W3C's obvious problems are most serious and threatening to the web itself!

While once an ad hoc volunteer working group of volunteers assembled to describe and recommend a standard path of evolution, it's takeover by a corporate consortium of vested interests has turned that once democratic body into a militant junta. They have demonstrated that it is no longer anything like an intelligent, considerate standards body, nor a self-regulator, nor of much use in doing much more than loosely describing the way they'd most prefer software to work, and how they think that that might occasionally happen! What we as a web community have got from them, are 4 grossly incompatible Markup Language 'standard-sets' in a variety of flavors, an unreadable encyclopedia of loosely re-described add-on tweaks and bandages about a zoo of new, alien web devices, the belated discovery that English is not the default language of all humans, and now, yet another new round of exceptionally incompatible dream-weavings.

While they continue the busy make- work of profiling their latest noble beast, their prophetic wisdom has yet to produce the popular white elephants of their dreams and the info highway is increasingly littered with the smelly, decaying carcasses of their prior, ill-spawned notions.

While I once wondered what they were smoking over there, I now detect the pungent odor of the Batista Regime's private stock. The suggestion that patented, non public domain 'property' become an official component of one of their private new dreamscapes, is actually laughable, if it did not represent such a clear threat to any notion of interoperability and impose an oppressive burden upon all publishers, software producers and users. With this hostile and onerous proposal, the "C" in W3C is coming to represent a truly different monopolistic threat to the entire world internet community:

The World Wide Web Cabal!

login or register to post comments

W3C

Submitted by javabandito on February 14, 2002 - 10:23.

ok, so this is horrible. especially for me. I am a novice of only a few months and one website of any merit. where will I be in a few years? hopefully, hacking away at new technologies to create well-developed and designed documents. Will I be able to afford to? I dunno. Thanks to W3C. Well, like a good evolter I emailed the W3C postmaster. Is there any sort of petitioning to be presented before some politician somewhere. After all isn't the W3C supposed to be arbitrator and independent counsel for the Web and not hold the interests of corporate business above, say, the development of a medium engrossed in open source? I hope my two cents weighs heavy, they might be the only two my study of web development will see.

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.