IP: Web consortium follies

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Janos Gereben" <janos451 () earthlink net>
>
> Patents in W3C standards provoke fury
> Rachel Chalmers - www.the451.com
> Oct 02, 2001, 11:38 AM ET
>
> San Francisco - A group of intellectual property lawyers working for
> large technology companies has tried to introduce a patent policy for
> the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that could see commercially
> patented technologies included in Web standards.
>
> The proposal has outraged critics, who say the companies involved
> tried to fast-track it to recommendation status. In particular, open
> source and free software advocates fear the hidden agenda is to build
> Web standards for which no legal open source implementation can be
> built.
>
> Among the authors of the document are Microsoft's Michele Herman, HP's
> Scott Peterson and Apple's Helene Plotka Workman. All three are
> attorneys charged with protecting their employers' intellectual
> property. Two of the three remaining group members are lawyers as
> well. As a group, it's unrepresentative of the composition of the W3C,
> let alone that of the Web itself.
>
> It is, however, entirely representative of commercial interests who
> would love Web standards to include patents on a 'reasonable and
> non-discriminatory' (RAND), rather than 'royalty-free' (RF) basis. Add
> to this the facts that few people in the wider W3C community had even
> heard of the Patent Policy Framework until the day before the deadline
> for public comments and that the comment period ended on a Sunday, and
> it's small wonder technologists are up in arms.
>
> Some critics - notably Electronic Frontier Foundation founder John
> Gilmore and Open Source Definition author Bruce Perens - have urged
> the W3C to extend the public comment period, in light of the
> importance of the issue and the sensitivity of the timing. Gilmore
> further suggested that as with the AES and DES encryption standards
> competitions and the IETF standards process, anyone who wanted a
> patented technology considered for inclusion in a standard should be
> required to license it for free and unlimited use if accepted.
>
> This is the RF model, and it's clear the writers of the policy
> document already considered it and rejected it as inadequate. In a
> 'frequently asked questions' document accompanying the policy, they
> write: "Our goal is to affirm the Web community's long-standing
> preference for recommendations that can be implemented on an RF basis.
> Where that is not possible, the new Policy will provide a framework to
> assure maximum possible openness based on RAND licensing terms."
>
> The trouble is that RAND licenses generally boil down to per-unit
> fees. No open source or free software license supports these kinds of
> fees. Some have construed the proposal as an attempt to ban open
> source and free software implementations of Web standards. Many
> illustrious critics - including Free Software Foundation (FSF) general
> counsel Eben Moglen, XML coauthor Tim Bray, Linux luminaries H. Peter
> Anvin and Alan Cox and Samba author Jeremy Allison - have condemned it
> outright.
>
> "I certainly will neither recommend the use of, nor work on
> implementations of, any W3C recommendation the use of which may
> involve liability for patent royalties," Bray wrote.
>
> "The proposal of loosening the patent policy of the W3C is an assault
> on the W3C itself," added Anvin.
>
> "I completely abhor and reject the decision of the W3C to endorse
> patented technologies as basic Web standards," wrote Allison. "I have
> been working in the file-sharing protocol world for eight years now,
> and no patent-encumbered technology ever gained broad acceptance
> there. Please reconsider this ill-judged idea, and refuse to endorse
> technologies and protocols covered by proprietary patents."
>
> FSF founder Richard Stallman weighed in with the observation that:
> "The W3C should also stop using the term 'reasonable and
> non-discriminatory' [RAND], because that term whitewashes a class of
> licenses that are normally neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory.
> It is true that they do not discriminate against any specific person,
> but they do discriminate against the free software community, and that
> makes them u nreasonable." As a replacement, Stallman suggested the
> term "uniform fee only," or UFO.
>
> The very vehemence of the outcry has been used to try to discredit its
> members. Janet Daly, the W3C's Head of Communication, replied quite
> sharply. "As of now, many comments sent to the W3C's Patent Policy
> Comment list simply say 'Don't!' By responding in this manner, writers
> give the Working Group nothing on which to build a constructive
> response or to consider," she wrote.
>
> So inflammatory and divisive is this issue, however, that the Working
> Group has little choice but to come up with the most thoughtful and
> diplomatic response imaginable.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Janos Gereben/SF
> janos451 () earthlink net



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/