- From: Ben Henick <persist1@io.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:37 -0500 (CDT)
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
The following is also available as a full-on Web document at http://www.io.com/persist1/info/011001.html -- And Quiet Flows the Rubicon The Siren Song of Patenting the Web's Infrastructure Yesterday a deadline passed on the "Last Call" period for a new World Wide Web Consortium policy process regarding patents. The surprise with which the majority of Web developers are receiving this news deserves journalism of its own, but I want to note instead the practical implications of this event. As proposed this process codifies some common-sense ideas, especially that companies involved in the W3C standards process should make a "good-faith" effort to disclose any patents they may have on file that will impact a given standard. As Microsoft has ebulliently pointed out, it sanctifies the concept of intellectual property as it can be applied to the Web. (I am now waiting for their senior management and PR flacks to suggest that the early Web was some sort of "Communist" or "anarchist" creation in keeping with the tactics of Microsoft's anti-OSS FUD campaign.) while I support Microsoft's position to the extent that people should be compensated for their hard work whenever it is practical, the idea of applying a licensing scheme to standard Web technologies is entirely one-sided, and disregards the prerogatives of the other three parties involved with the Web apart from purveyors of infrastructure: content creators, developers, and most importantly... users. I am especially concerned for the latter group, since shit tends to roll downhill. The users are the ones standing at the bottom of that hill. From what I read, any licensing fees would be applied "fairly," without an exact definition of what "fairly" means in terms of the dollars and cents licensing is meant to obtain. When one considers that Web content creation is already an expensive task, I bristle at the thought that I or my employer might be asked to pay yet MORE money for the simple objective of following the law. Furthermore, as pointed out by Richard Stallman and others, the idea of allowing protected IP to be standardized creates a situation in which the inner workings of standard technologies can be hidden from the public view. The impact this would have on the very innovation that has kept the Web growing for the past ten years is manifest. These are the problems. As some have already pointed out, solutions are hard to come by. First, we as a community can ask the W3C to shelve the licensing idea altogether. Second, we can ask W3C to insist that patents on standards should have free licenses, as Stallman has suggested. This would certainly prevent any further "gotchas" like the ones inflicted by Unisys (GIF), Frauenhofer (MP3), or British Telecom (hypertext in general). We would not even have to debate - as we have in the latter case - whether or not there is "prior art" to make the patent unenforceable. Third, we can endeavor through the Web Standards Project or a new group to become more involved in the standards process from the beginning, and serve as a counterweight to the megacorps. (Perhaps that reference should be singular, but I digress.) This would require close collaboration with open-source development groups, but might prove to be the most fruitful avenue for continued innovation that will best service the everyday Web user if it is pursued with intensity and vigilance. Fourth, we can sit on our hands. In the latter two cases, we will begin to see a standards process that is fraught with controversy as various entities fight amonst themselves to control the licensing of new technologies, which users may then reject. To have a standard that must be paid for with each implementation or end-use is an affront to the community standards of the Web as we have known it for ten years. For standards to be held up in the face of development problems, infighting, and other issues is something we've already seen on a small scale, with the seemingly-endless development of Mozilla into a consumer-grade tool. Does anyone want such scenarioes to become the Standard Operating Procedure for the development of new Web technologies? Once all of these hurdles have been surmounted, it is then up to the user to decide if they are going to actually use the technology. Many ideas have been rejected despite the best efforts of incredibly bright people with a nearly blank check. For the W3C to legitimize the possibility of such an outcome by allowing a single company to patent a standard runs the risk of slowing down innovation on the Web... and that's what frightens me most. Why? You can always make more money... but as recent events have underscored, you cannot make more time. For this reason, I call on the W3C generally, and its Patent Policy Working Group members in particular, to put the Patent Policy Framework process on hold until a reasonable cross-section of those involved with the Web - meaning content creators, developers, and users in addition to providers of infrastructure and software - has had a "good faith" opportunity to make an honest contribution to its implementation. Thanks for reading, -- Ben Henick Web Author At-Large Managing Editor http://www.io.com/persist1/ http://www.digital-web.com/ persist1@io.com bmh@digital-web.com -- "Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?" "I think so, Brain, but... (snort) no, no, it's too stupid." "We will disguise ourselves as a cow." "Oh!" (giggles) "That was it exactly!"
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 16:51:38 UTC