[WEB4LIB] W3C Patent Policy and the future of HTML (fwd)

[Ssdb Admin]

   It seems to me that some of the murkiness is because we can only 
   speculate how it will really turn out.  There seem to be two pretty
   clear sides to the debate, though,  the corporate side 
   (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22052.html) and the "free
   software" 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0018.html)   side.

   Here are some other links I've found helpful:

   The Electronic Frontier Foundation has some good explanations and 
   suggestions and links to more information.

	http://www.eff.org/alerts/20011004_eff_w3c_patent_alert.html

   Adam Warner has criticism of the proposal

       http://www.openphd.net/W3C_Patent_Policy/28_Sept_Document

   that includes an interesting note about "back door RAND";

        This means oversight, negligence or perhaps deception is rewarded by
        requiring the commitment to a RAND license rather than a royalty-free
        one.  If a relevant patent was disclosed at the appropriate time it
        might have been worked around, or the working group may have even
        disbanded.

   An article in the register ("The free Web's over, as W3C blesses Net
   patent taxes" By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco Posted: 01/10/2001) 
   says:

        Traditionally patents have been enshrined as standards on a RF or
        "royalty free" basis, but the PPWG proposes what it calls RAND, or
        "reasonable, non-discriminatory" license terms for IP where the
        licensee is wants compensation, and deals with collecting and
        distributing royalty income.  

	http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21948.html

jj

---
Jim Jacobs, Data Services Librarian             voice: (858) 534-1262
University of California, San Diego               FAX: (858) 534-7548
9500 Gilman Drive   Library 0175-R                  jajacobs at ucsd.edu
La Jolla, CA 92093-0175                     

> Does anyone have a decent understanding of what the W3C is up to with regard 
> to patents, and what it's going to mean for us?  
> 
> A few weeks ago the w3c issued a draft document on the subject for comment 
>
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ 
> 
> and more recently posted some responses and remarks 
>
        http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response 
> 
> Having read most of the way through both of these documents I still have no 
> clue what they're talking about.  What I do know is that various folks are 
> suggesting that we're going to have to pay royalties on the use of HTML, CSS &
> XML. Is this overreaction?  Real life?  I haven't the first clue what they're 
> talking about and I have a feeling the W3C likes it that way.  
> 
> The documents talk about both "royalty-free"
        (RF) and "reasonable and 
> non-discriminatory" (RAND) licenses, I have
        no sense of the context.  
> 
> Does anyone understand this?  
> 
> Ken