News of 2001	EC presses for Community Patent	German Gov't publishes an ambivalent study	EC Consensus on Directive?	New Guidelines	Patented WWW Standards	Hague Convention	Swpat Article	WIPO treaty prosal to make patent inflation irreversible

W3C to allow royalty-burdened standards

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has in a discussion paper explained the difficulties which it is encountering in an environment where basic calculation tasks are being patented. In order to motivate patent owners to cooperate, W3C proposes to allow "less basic" standards to be usable only against payment of "reasonable and non-discriminatory" of royalties to a consortium of patentees. This has sparked controversy, particularly because the burden could be unjustifiably onerous and completely exclude free/opensource software.

Tim Berners-Lee: What do you think?: W3C deliberating about fee-based standards. The W3C director explains what caused the W3C to envisage this possibility. Apparently a group of companies is pushing for this, while other, namely Canon, HP and Oracle are not.
Adam Warner: Discussion Draft
W3C Patent Policy Comment Archive
Peter Toft: Comment on proposed patent policy change on behalf of SSLUG
St�fane Fermigier: Comment on proposed patent policy change on behalf of AFUL
Eurolinux urges W3C to reject patent-encumbered standards
Prof. Dr. iur. K.F. Lenz: W3C legalese unintelligible, invalid: A proposal of this kind cannot be promulgated like just another standard, because it implies a change of contract of the W3C members. Before thinking about such a proposal, the W3C should oblige its members and friends to use all available means to defend free standards against patent extortionists.
Daniel Probst: Software Economics is different, fee-based standards may infringe on competition law: An economist explains why fee-based standards on information innovation are unjustified and generate perverse consequences, and why they could, at least in Europe, run afoul of competition law and be declared invalid. Sees the W3C proposal as an attempt by a group of large US based companies to enforce artificially high prices in their favor and to exclude free/opensource software.
Chuck Weinberger: How RAND procedures have obstructed the standardisation process in the telecommunications area: explains from experience in ITU committees, how RAND procedures slowed down the adoption of new standards and made it extremely difficult for small companies to compete in the telecommunications area.
Florian Weimer: W3C and the Promotion of Fee-based Standards for the Web: explains trouble with RAND policies, their weakness in view of submarine patents and the problem with free software.
Gartner Analyst advises against patented W3C standards
Dave Winer: Patents and the W3C: W3C is caving in to BigCos who want to turn the Web into an entertainment channel, harming small developpers and in the long run themselves.
Public Review of Patent Policy Framework: Last Call
phm 2001-08: RAND and Free Software?
explanations from HP representative at W3C
Adam Warner: W3C Patent Policy Comment
Daniel Roedding: Das W3C, RAND-Lizenzen, Swpat und der IT-Abschwung
IBM patent lawyers behind the "RAND" proposal, IBM server people opposed.
Andreas Kleinert: W3C, PNG, Apple: It seems that pressure from Apple to collect license fees for some stupid graphics patents played a major role in bringing up the RAND proposal.
Apple wants fees for its patent on alpha channel in web graphics
RMS: W3C Patent Policy: RAND ==> UFO: RAND neither reasonable nor fair. Should be called UFO: Uniform Fee Only.
Heise News-Ticker: W3C will Web patentieren
Jay Sulzberger: letter to the W3C: Please do not ...
A. Stohr: USA, Patente und W3C Standards: Various links, comparisons to feudal ages