- From: Gene McKenna <mckenna@bluedot.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:09:23 -0700
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
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 a 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.
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 04:10:20 UTC