Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Apple publicly disagrees with IBM and W3C over RAND

By codepoet in Technology
Sat Oct 13, 2001 at 02:44:30 AM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

The public review time for the new W3C Patent Policy Framework, which outlines a standard of treatment for new suggestions for standards that are covered by patents, ended yesterday and already Apple has issued a statement saying that all "fundamental Web standards" should be available without royalties, contrary to the allowance of the W3C for RAND licenses ("reasonable and non-discriminatory") which have the possibilty of a required royalty payment.


Further, they say that should royalties be requested of the patent holder that the specification should no longer be considered for a standard. Hopefully others will follow suit (unlike IBM, which has issued support of RAND even as they support Linux and other patent-free software, as mentioned in this other article) such that the W3C does not allow fundamental standards to become royalty-based intelectual property.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Standards patents ...
o should be allowed to request royalties. 0%
o should be allowed, but not on a royalty basis. 22%
o should not exist. 77%

Votes: 35
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o W3C Patent Policy Framework
o Apple
o statement
o RAND licenses
o issued support
o other article
o Also by codepoet


Display: Sort:
Apple publicly disagrees with IBM and W3C over RAND | 8 comments (6 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Apple rox! (4.33 / 3) (#2)
by Justinfinity on Fri Oct 12, 2001 at 07:04:39 PM EST

Apple used to have a case of "it's cool and you should use it, but it's our and don't forget to pay us for it". They've changed a lot.

Look at FireWire/i.Link/IEEE1394. Darwin source anyone? Apple is again headed in the right direction on many fronts.

Now if only the legal dept would stop bitching about people modifying or copying Aqua.

(posted from my iBook2 in MacOS X.1 with Mozilla/OSX :-)

-Justin
Got water?
Perl is freedom in programming. BSD is freedom in operating. Kuro5h

Yeah, look at FireWire... (2.50 / 4) (#4)
by jason on Fri Oct 12, 2001 at 07:22:32 PM EST

There's a $1 royalty per connector paid to Apple. There's no such tax on USB. That's why it's taking so long for a technically better system even to be noticed. They may have backed off, or it may only be linked to the FireWire name (hence Sony's i.LINK).

While I applaud Apple's statement, FireWire is a poor example. Besides, Apple's never been about core plumbing. They're about "user experience." A cheap / free core plumbing means they can spend money on their primary objectives. Meanwhile, IBM's very much a core plumbing company.

[ Parent ]

Inaccurate Information: 25 cents actual fee (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by truth versus death on Sat Oct 13, 2001 at 01:26:05 AM EST

Your information is not accurate. The article you cite is out of date. The EE Times reported later on the real license fee -- 25 cents per device:

A 25 cent royalty is due for each system that is shipped and this is not a per-port royalty. It is 25 cents per system regardless of how many ports, parts or nodes are included.

It is not paid to Apple either:

This royalty is paid to the 1394 Licensing Authority (1394LA), which is the administrator of the 1394 patent pool.

Be careful not to spread false rumors.

"any erection implies consent"-fae
[ Trim your Bush ]
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the later article. (4.00 / 2) (#8)
by jason on Sat Oct 13, 2001 at 05:50:38 PM EST

I had tried to find more information, but... It is interesting that Apple never denied the royalties, and that other companies decided not to use 1394 based on that. Also, Apple is a primary member of the patent pool, with the most patents. (Cute. That the pool is administered by none other than our MPAA buddies, Proskauer Rose LLP. Other press releases mention Sullivan & Cromwell. Dunno.)

While it's possible that Apple has seen the light, I doubt it. Apple would rather have other peoples' work for free while charging for their own. Not all of the relevant 1394 patents are on hardware. Some are on software protocols (power, primarily).

[ Parent ]

Apple rox! (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by Justinfinity on Fri Oct 12, 2001 at 07:05:04 PM EST

Apple used to have a case of "it's cool and you should use it, but it's our and don't forget to pay us for it". They've changed a lot.

Look at FireWire/i.Link/IEEE1394. Darwin source anyone? Apple is again headed in the right direction on many fronts.

Now if only the legal dept would stop bitching about people modifying or copying Aqua.

(posted from my iBook2 in MacOS X.1 with Mozilla/OSX :-)

-Justin
Got water?
Perl is freedom in programming. BSD is freedom in operating. Kuro5h

Bitching... (4.00 / 1) (#7)
by Refrag on Sat Oct 13, 2001 at 09:51:09 AM EST

They really only bitch about the themes that use one of their trademarks. They don't go after people copying the look and feel of Aqua from what I've seen.

Refrag

Kuro5hin: ...and culture, from the trenches
[ Parent ]

Apple publicly disagrees with IBM and W3C over RAND | 8 comments (6 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!