4 ms·

Alternate title:"Apple disclosing patents ahead of deadline in accordance with W3C patent policy, again." The sense of malice seems to be inferred from Apple n

by GHFigs 15y ago

Alternate title:"Apple disclosing patents ahead of deadline in accordance with W3C patent policy, again." The sense of malice seems to be inferred from Apple not disclosing these sooner, but I question what the point is of having a deadline if disclosures a month prior to it are going to be considered disruptive. If this was going undermine the process, shouldn't the deadline have been sooner?

mbrubeck 15y ago
The case where a W3C member has essential claims that aren't available under W3C royalty-free licensing requirements is treated as an "exception" to W3C policy [1], not an expected part of the normal process. It requires formation of a special committee and is truly disruptive. Apple seems to be one of the only members willing to do it regularly. [1]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exc... What would have been less disruptive is if Apple had any other communication at all with the W3C Web Events working since it was formed more than a year ago. Actually participating in a working group that is working an APIs they are shipping is the normal way for a W3C member to help shape a standard. If they had participated in the group, then the patents would have come up during the disclosure period for the First Public Working Draft back in May 2011. Instead, they recently even asked for other, unrelated standards (like the Game Pad API) to be moved to a different working group so they can continue to avoid participation in the Web Events WG [2]. [2]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0131.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011Oct... Or, better, Apple could have brought touch events to the W3C themselves after they first shipped them in Safari back in 2007. (Even better is to propose new standards before shipping them in a production browser, so that other parties can provide feedback before the standard is locked in by content compatibility - but I understand that proprietary browser vendors won't always do this because of secrecy around product launches.) And of course, not patenting their extensions to the web platform would also be great. :(
- roc 15y ago
  I'd be down for considering corporations that retain software patents [1] to be malicious. But I'm not sure I can get behind intimating that groups are being maliciously or aloofly disruptive simply because they aren't participating in Open Source working groups to the degree that we might like. Again, if the timing is disruptive, the group should have set an earlier deadline for disclosure. If Apple's honoring the rules, then their timing is only as disruptive as the rules allowed in the first place. So it seems more reasonable to critique and revise the rules than to cast aspersions about dedication and motives. [1] i.e. do not simply file for and retain ownership for defensive purposes, but freely license them to prevent any offensive use on their part.
  - mbrubeck 15y ago
    As I said, there were earlier deadlines, but they didn't apply to members who weren't in the working group -- just as the whole process doesn't apply to companies that aren't W3C members at all. Perhaps it was a strategic error by the W3C to standardize touch events in a new working group (allowing Apple to delay longer just by refusing to participate), rather than an existing working group that Apple already participated in. But in the end, no matter what process changes a standardization body makes, Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. And they'll continue to do so whenever engaging the standards community is less beneficial than their other priorities (like having a stronger patent arsenal to use against mobile OS competitors). And sure, I don't expect Apple to act any differently. They are a for-profit corporation, and they have not just an expectation but a duty to use the tools the system gives them -- including patents, secrecy, and lock-in -- to create and capture value. And they are very good at it. And they've created some tremendous value not just for their shareholders but also for users and developers. But, thinking in the long term, remember that the open web is part of what kept alternative platforms like the Mac useful and viable through decades of Windows monopoly, and what made devices like the iPhone useful from day one, before the SDK and the app store. Open platforms like the web are great for disrupters, but for the same reason they are scary to incumbents. If the dominant computing platforms of the 1990s were as locked-down as iOS and Windows Phone are today (with one company controlling software distribution, and forbidding any alternate ways to download and run code), then the web would never have been allowed to take off. I want to build and sustain platforms where the next web-like innovation will be allowed to happen. But today's incumbents understand what this means, so I expect a real fight to keep that possibility alive.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  Would it have been less disruptive in May? It's very clear that Apple's participation would have been preferable, but is there any other way this would have gone down even with it? (Your posts have been much more informative than the submission, thank you.)
  - mbrubeck 15y ago
    The outcome of this process is still unknown -- the patents might be found not to apply, or acceptable licensing terms may yet be worked out. But, if not, then we may need to change the specification. That could mean minor tweaks or it could mean developing new APIs from scratch. If the disclosure came six months earlier, then there's the potential that it could have saved us six months of work writing and implementing specs that might now be abandoned. We could also be well on the way to developing and standardizing the replacement API (if one turned out to be necessary).
notatoad 15y ago
The letter of the law is one thing, being a dick is another. It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them. They also knew that the w3c and the browser vendors were working on this. They let everybody work on the standard while they planned to throw their legal team at it at the last minute. It doesn't matter what the rules are, apple is acting maliciously here.
- adestefan 15y ago
  It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them. You're assuming the people working with the W3C even knew that Apple had these patents. Apple is a big corporation. The people that are working with the W3C probably didn't even look for the patents themselves, it was probably the legal department that finally said, "Oh here's some that might apply."
  - notatoad 15y ago
    i am assuming that apple's legal department know what their own company is up to. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.
  - mbrubeck 15y ago
    Apple has refused to join the W3C Web Events WG since it started in October 2010. One of the only benefits they get from not participating is that it's easier for them to exclude patents from licensing requirements. We should assume that Apple's legal team carefully considered the patent issues back when the company was deciding whether to join the working group.
- napierzaza 15y ago
  Because why? It took time for them to research their patents or prepare the submission? Why are you assuming that everything could have somehow been ready instantly at a moments notice? If they set a deadline they should be happy that Apple abides by it.
haberman 15y ago
Just to offer a condensed version of mbrubeck's detailed information: Apple have played this strategically in the W3C so they could make this patent disclosure as late as possible, despite the fact that they have been shipping these supposedly patented APIs in Safari since 2007 and encouraging developers to use them, and despite the fact that this proposed standard was first published back in May. The deadline was not sooner only because Apple strategically avoided joining the relevant working group, which would have forced an earlier disclosure.
mbrubeck 15y ago
I think Haavard's feelings about Apple deliberately causing delays are mostly based on the previous cases he wrote about, like the one where Apple submitted their disclosure on day 149 of the 150-day exclusion period, and then caused further delays by failing to respond to questions from the Patent Advisory Group. And after this huge waste of time, the PAG ultimately determined that Apple's patents didn't even apply to the spec in question: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/10/30/apple-w3c-patents http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/10/30/apple-w3c-patent...

by GHFigs 15y ago

mbrubeck 15y ago

The case where a W3C member has essential claims that aren't available under W3C royalty-free licensing requirements is treated as an "exception" to W3C policy [1], not an expected part of the normal process. It requires formation of a special committee and is truly disruptive. Apple seems to be one of the only members willing to do it regularly. [1]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exc... What would have been less disruptive is if Apple had any other communication at all with the W3C Web Events working since it was formed more than a year ago. Actually participating in a working group that is working an APIs they are shipping is the normal way for a W3C member to help shape a standard. If they had participated in the group, then the patents would have come up during the disclosure period for the First Public Working Draft back in May 2011. Instead, they recently even asked for other, unrelated standards (like the Game Pad API) to be moved to a different working group so they can continue to avoid participation in the Web Events WG [2]. [2]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011OctDec/0131.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011Oct... Or, better, Apple could have brought touch events to the W3C themselves after they first shipped them in Safari back in 2007. (Even better is to propose new standards before shipping them in a production browser, so that other parties can provide feedback before the standard is locked in by content compatibility - but I understand that proprietary browser vendors won't always do this because of secrecy around product launches.) And of course, not patenting their extensions to the web platform would also be great. :(

roc 15y ago
I'd be down for considering corporations that retain software patents [1] to be malicious. But I'm not sure I can get behind intimating that groups are being maliciously or aloofly disruptive simply because they aren't participating in Open Source working groups to the degree that we might like. Again, if the timing is disruptive, the group should have set an earlier deadline for disclosure. If Apple's honoring the rules, then their timing is only as disruptive as the rules allowed in the first place. So it seems more reasonable to critique and revise the rules than to cast aspersions about dedication and motives. [1] i.e. do not simply file for and retain ownership for defensive purposes, but freely license them to prevent any offensive use on their part.
- mbrubeck 15y ago
  As I said, there were earlier deadlines, but they didn't apply to members who weren't in the working group -- just as the whole process doesn't apply to companies that aren't W3C members at all. Perhaps it was a strategic error by the W3C to standardize touch events in a new working group (allowing Apple to delay longer just by refusing to participate), rather than an existing working group that Apple already participated in. But in the end, no matter what process changes a standardization body makes, Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. And they'll continue to do so whenever engaging the standards community is less beneficial than their other priorities (like having a stronger patent arsenal to use against mobile OS competitors). And sure, I don't expect Apple to act any differently. They are a for-profit corporation, and they have not just an expectation but a duty to use the tools the system gives them -- including patents, secrecy, and lock-in -- to create and capture value. And they are very good at it. And they've created some tremendous value not just for their shareholders but also for users and developers. But, thinking in the long term, remember that the open web is part of what kept alternative platforms like the Mac useful and viable through decades of Windows monopoly, and what made devices like the iPhone useful from day one, before the SDK and the app store. Open platforms like the web are great for disrupters, but for the same reason they are scary to incumbents. If the dominant computing platforms of the 1990s were as locked-down as iOS and Windows Phone are today (with one company controlling software distribution, and forbidding any alternate ways to download and run code), then the web would never have been allowed to take off. I want to build and sustain platforms where the next web-like innovation will be allowed to happen. But today's incumbents understand what this means, so I expect a real fight to keep that possibility alive.
GHFigs 15y ago
Would it have been less disruptive in May? It's very clear that Apple's participation would have been preferable, but is there any other way this would have gone down even with it? (Your posts have been much more informative than the submission, thank you.)
- mbrubeck 15y ago
  The outcome of this process is still unknown -- the patents might be found not to apply, or acceptable licensing terms may yet be worked out. But, if not, then we may need to change the specification. That could mean minor tweaks or it could mean developing new APIs from scratch. If the disclosure came six months earlier, then there's the potential that it could have saved us six months of work writing and implementing specs that might now be abandoned. We could also be well on the way to developing and standardizing the replacement API (if one turned out to be necessary).

notatoad 15y ago

The letter of the law is one thing, being a dick is another. It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them. They also knew that the w3c and the browser vendors were working on this. They let everybody work on the standard while they planned to throw their legal team at it at the last minute. It doesn't matter what the rules are, apple is acting maliciously here.

adestefan 15y ago
It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them. You're assuming the people working with the W3C even knew that Apple had these patents. Apple is a big corporation. The people that are working with the W3C probably didn't even look for the patents themselves, it was probably the legal department that finally said, "Oh here's some that might apply."
- notatoad 15y ago
  i am assuming that apple's legal department know what their own company is up to. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.
- mbrubeck 15y ago
  Apple has refused to join the W3C Web Events WG since it started in October 2010. One of the only benefits they get from not participating is that it's easier for them to exclude patents from licensing requirements. We should assume that Apple's legal team carefully considered the patent issues back when the company was deciding whether to join the working group.
napierzaza 15y ago
Because why? It took time for them to research their patents or prepare the submission? Why are you assuming that everything could have somehow been ready instantly at a moments notice? If they set a deadline they should be happy that Apple abides by it.

haberman 15y ago

Just to offer a condensed version of mbrubeck's detailed information: Apple have played this strategically in the W3C so they could make this patent disclosure as late as possible, despite the fact that they have been shipping these supposedly patented APIs in Safari since 2007 and encouraging developers to use them, and despite the fact that this proposed standard was first published back in May. The deadline was not sooner only because Apple strategically avoided joining the relevant working group, which would have forced an earlier disclosure.

mbrubeck 15y ago

I think Haavard's feelings about Apple deliberately causing delays are mostly based on the previous cases he wrote about, like the one where Apple submitted their disclosure on day 149 of the 150-day exclusion period, and then caused further delays by failing to respond to questions from the Patent Advisory Group. And after this huge waste of time, the PAG ultimately determined that Apple's patents didn't even apply to the spec in question: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/10/30/apple-w3c-patents http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/10/30/apple-w3c-patent...