| nettime's_policy_wonk on Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:42:00 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> W3C WWW patent polciy digest [ferner, duncan, byfield (oram)] |
Tore Ferner <torfer@pvv.org>
Today: Deadline for Public Comment on Patent Policy for WWW Standards
Phil Duncan <PDuncan@aggregatestudio.com>
W3C and Patents
t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
[andyo@oreilly.com: Web Content at Risk in W3C's Proposed Patent
Framework]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:23:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tore Ferner <torfer@pvv.org>
Subject: Today: Deadline for Public Comment on Patent Policy for WWW Standards
Hello,
Perhaps some art and media groups/institutions want to make their
statements on a patent policy proposal for W3C's web standards. Deadline
for public hearing: today.
EFF:
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20011004_eff_w3c_patent_alert.html
Comments so far are listed here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/
The comments by The Open Source Initiative and Mozilla:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1310.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1350.html
Tore
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:01:47 +0100
From: Phil Duncan <PDuncan@aggregatestudio.com>
Subject: W3C and Patents
Article from: http://www.internetweek.com/transtoday01/ttoday100901.htm
W3C and Patents
Source document: http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/
For an organization based on openness, this one almost slipped through the
cracks. The W3C, the standards body that shepherds the Web's most important
standards, six weeks ago had somewhat-too-quietly expressed its interest in
re-examining how it dealt with crucial patent issues.
Somehow, the original posting of the proposal
[http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/] passed with little notice. But last
week, the issue caught fire across the Web. The response (visible in the
feedback forums on this page
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/]), show
almost universal opposition to the idea. But big technology companies--the
very ones that fund the W3C--want to better protect their contributions
going forward.
It's still not clear how this controversy will shake out (call for comments
has been extended until this Thursday). The W3C in the past has supported
so-called "royalty-free" licensing models for technologies based on its
standards. Now, it is proposing the addition of licensing based on
reasonable, non-discriminatory, or RAND, terms. But a license is a license,
and control over key elements of Web standards would give the
patent-holders true power. Or alternatively, it would render that standard
worthless.
It's hard to defend the intertwining of Web standards and patents. Where
would we be today without royalty-free standards like HTML, HTTP and XML?
But it's not surprising to see this development occur. Savvy vendors, from
Microsoft to IBM to Sun have been "gaming" the standards process for years
now.
When operating from a position of weakness--think of Microsoft early in the
Web browser game, or today with instant messaging--touting open standards
has become a standard tactical move. Alternatively, when a vendor owns a de
facto standard, the W3C or other standards bodies often become an
after-thought.
Attempting to patent W3C contributions takes that gamesmanship to dangerous
levels, and threatens the very foundation of the Web.
While most independent developers are vociferous in their opposition to
patents, it's tougher to handicap the opinion of mainstream IT
developers--our core readership. On one hand, IT is increasingly relying on
open source and Web standards to drive the enterprise. But on the other
hand, IT execs have also traditionally banked on the dictum that you can't
get fired for hiring IBM or Microsoft or any of the other large vendors
that have the most to win from this new patent battle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:33:19 -0400
From: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
Subject: [andyo@oreilly.com: Web Content at Risk in W3C's Proposed Patent Framework]
good summary of bad news.
cheers,
t
----- Forwarded
date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 07:37:43 -0400 (EDT)
from: Andy Oram <andyo@oreilly.com>
to: cpsr-activists@cpsr.org
subject: Web Content at Risk in W3C's Proposed Patent Framework
http://www.oreilly.com/news/oram_patents_1001.html
A Web of Bronze, a Medium of Lead:
Web Content at Risk in W3C's Proposed Patent Framework
by Andy Oram, O'Reilly editor
__________________________________________________________________
It would be understating the case to say that the World Wide Web is
facing the biggest challenge of its history. More accurately, the Web
as a rich, evolving organism is on its way to the dustbin if the World
Wide Web Consortium goes through with its proposed [48]W3C Patent
Policy Framework. This proposal would allow patented techniques to be
inserted into W3C recommendations that permanently shape the future
Web.
In your imagination, sweep the Web off the world and put the following
in its place:
1. A system where you can no longer save a document to disk, or even
cut and paste a few words.
2. A system retreating from the promise of universal resource
locators. Each site has to be visited through its portal, and you
have to follow a path through ad-polluted screens to get to the
content you want.
3. A system where every view is tracked and recorded by a site,
perhaps down to the amount you scroll through a page. You might be
charged for each screen or have your browsing behavior added to a
database for whatever purposes the site owners want.
None of these items is alarmist or speculative. They are all being done
right now. (Sites accomplish the first through frames, the second
through lawsuits against "deep links," and the third through Web bugs
and cookies.) But the W3C's proposed framework will ultimately enshrine
such digital rights management (DRM) techniques right in the protocols
and file formats required to make an appearance on the Web.
Current trends in DRM threaten the concepts of fair use (allowing users
to reuse material for legitimate educational purposes, commentary, and
criticism) and of derivate works (allowing users to add value to
information through adding to it innovatively). DRM has technical
weaknesses that require it to be bolstered by laws such as the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that lead to heavy-handed restrictions
on the distribution of software and information.
Neither the W3C proposal nor the [49]W3C backgrounder reveals the
dangers that the framework would hold for users' rights, so I'll lay
out how it can come to pass:
1. Someone invents a file format and protocol that contains the kinds
of digital rights management the content providers have been
talking about for years, while patenting the key features that
enforce the rules on viewers.
2. The format and protocol get adopted as specifications.
3. Content providers pay software companies to create browsers and
servers that accommodate the format and protocol. Licensing ensures
that all systems preserve the intended controls. (Licensing need
not, however, prevent systems from over-reaching the restrictions
or removing other user rights.)
4. Anyone developing an alternative server or browser gets sued for
patent infringement, in addition to any criminal penalties imposed
by the DMCA or the recently proposed [50]Security Systems Standards
and Certification Act (SSSCA).
Nothing in the proposed framework allows independent developers to
access the new formats without the controls that threaten fair use and
derivative works. If the stated purpose of a system is to limit use, a
license requiring such controls would automatically be considered
"reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory."
Nor does it help for the proposal to say that the "core Web
infrastructure" should remain royalty free. The damage is done by the
license itself, not by royalties. Furthermore, the damage can occur
outside the core on the application layer.
It is now commonplace, following Lawrence Lessig's insightful book
[51]Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, to speak of computer
architectures that encourage or enforce particular behavior. How far
will large content providers and their legal advisors go in abusing
such a trend? They tipped their hand pretty far in letting the SSSCA
come to the floor of Congress. This law would effectively announce the
end of innovation in digital technology: it would become illegal to
create any hardware or software that failed to incorporate controls
chosen by the content providers. According to an article in The
Register, [52]Music Biz Wants Tougher DMCA, CPRM 2 to Protect
Copyright, the Recording Industry Association of America is expanding
its efforts to put mandatory digital rights management in hardware.
Current restrictions on Web content are carried out in half-baked, ad
hoc fashions by individual sites. A patented DRM specification would
not only make it easy for content providers who want these controls,
but would force all Web sites to conform. There would be a catch-all
"public domain" or "fair use" setting, but it would have to be
explicitly invoked.
Things get worse, folks. The stream of inventive media we've seen over
the past decade would dry up faster than the Colorado River on its
route south. People could no longer design protocols and user
interfaces wherever their imaginations could take them. Instead, they
would have to start with the reality of an extremely rigid and
restrictive standard, and ask, "How can we extend what is allowed
within that framework?" We'd never know what we lost.
This threat has been described in many criticisms already lodged by
open source software advocates against the W3C proposal. The
flexibility of the Web would change to a confining mesh with the
rigidity of bronze. The channels that were meant to carry the thoughts
of a million users would darken to the opacity of lead as they carry
out their primary goal of blocking content sharing.
When I started reading about the W3C patent proposal, the parallels
with the SSSCA were too glaring to ignore. Do I have any evidence that
the hidden agenda of the W3C is to ensconce DRM? No. But as
leading-edge developer Dave Winer told me, "DRM is behind everything."
When dealing with content holders and their legal advisors, I've
learned never to attribute to ignorance what could be attributed to
malicious intent.
But even if a few Internet activists were the first people, by some
unimaginable luck, to think up this plan, it would not be long before
content providers came to it themselves. Face it: this nightmare is the
dream medium for plenty of commercial sites. But of course, the
intellectual property holders have the noblest of intentions in their
own minds. The argument they would make is the same they've always made
in opposing open technologies that further the innovative use of
information. They believe that nobody generates anything worth looking
at or listening to without a strong guarantee of payment pegged to
sales. Thus, to further the growth and use of the Web, one needs to
protect content from unauthorized uses. It's a reasonably consistent
argument.
Luckily, since word got out about the proposed framework, email has
been pouring in to [53]the mailing list for comments (755 messages in
September, and already over 1,400 in October--including [54]one from
me), and all the ones I've sampled are strongly anti-patent. The W3C,
I'm sure, will listen to its true constituency, the public.
If the Web is to stay free, we must still face the problem of how to
work around pre-existing patents taken out by corporations or
individuals who are happy to hold the technology ransom and feel no
loss if the technology never becomes a W3C recommendation. We may have
to rely on moral exhortation and facing down the opponent in these
cases. Luckily, a large percentage of innovations stem from
government-sponsored, or public research (although the rush of
universities toward patents and commercial partnerships threatens this
too). I am willing to compromise with financial realities, but not to
the point of allowing a dagger to be plunged into the heart of what the
best minds on the Web have worked for.
Resources
* [56]W3C Patent Policy: Bad for the W3C, Bad for Business, Bad for
Users by Alan Cox (W3C mailing list).
* [57]Corrupting Standards to Privatize the Public Good by Dan
Gillmor (SiliconValley.com).
* [58]W3C Public Comment Page (World Wide Web Consortium).
* [59]W3C Considers Royalty-Bound Patents in Web Standards
(Slashdot).
* [60]W3C Looking for More Patent Feedback (Slashdot).
__________________________________________________________________
Andy Oram, an editor at O'Reilly & Associates, developed our Linux
series and is responsible for a number of other O'Reilly books on
programming and open source software. And he probably spends more time
writing rather oddball articles for the O'Reilly Web site than he
should. His background and other publications can be found at an
[61]Interview with the Editor.
Copyright (c) 2001, O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
References
48. http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-policy/
49. http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response
50. http://www.politechbot.com/docs/hollings.090701.html
51. http://code-is-law.org/
52. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html
53. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/
54. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/1386.html
56. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0131.html
57. http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/09/30/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/index.htmblog/index.htm
58. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/
59. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/30/1454216&mode=flat
60. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/02/1238201&mode=flat
61. http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/
----- Backwarded
--
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ oO \~@ a nationalist is a globalist whose city got bombed
/_( \__/ )_\
\_U__/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net