5 ms·

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

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.
  - roc 15y ago
    > "Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. " Sure. And at that point it will be reasonable to cast aspersions all we want. I just don't think it's reasonable to do so while they're still following the rules. > "the web would never have been allowed to take off." The systems being locked down isn't a big deal, I don't think. The far larger risk was the monoculture that Windows presented and thus the control Microsoft could (and tried) to exert. As long as we have healthy competition between viable alternatives, I think the mobile space will be healthier than PCs in the 90s. Carriers, manufacturers and platform vendors today may try to squeeze out third party solutions, as Verizon is trying to control the NFC wallet space. But they extent to which they might succeed is the extent to which there aren't competitors for what they offer. The operating systems they (ab)use to push this plan are largely irrelevant of their ability to get away with it. Indeed they stand at their highest chance for success, right now, with the most open mobile operating system on the market. That said, a locked-down monoculture would be a far bigger threat than a monoculture with more freedom.
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).

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.
- roc 15y ago
  > "Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. " Sure. And at that point it will be reasonable to cast aspersions all we want. I just don't think it's reasonable to do so while they're still following the rules. > "the web would never have been allowed to take off." The systems being locked down isn't a big deal, I don't think. The far larger risk was the monoculture that Windows presented and thus the control Microsoft could (and tried) to exert. As long as we have healthy competition between viable alternatives, I think the mobile space will be healthier than PCs in the 90s. Carriers, manufacturers and platform vendors today may try to squeeze out third party solutions, as Verizon is trying to control the NFC wallet space. But they extent to which they might succeed is the extent to which there aren't competitors for what they offer. The operating systems they (ab)use to push this plan are largely irrelevant of their ability to get away with it. Indeed they stand at their highest chance for success, right now, with the most open mobile operating system on the market. That said, a locked-down monoculture would be a far bigger threat than a monoculture with more freedom.

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).