Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

W3C Chastises Apple On HTML5 Patenting

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the play-nice-with-the-other-children dept.

Patents 126

angry tapir writes "The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) is seeking to invalidate a pair of Apple patents so the underlying technologies can be used as part of a royalty-free HTML5 stack. The patented technologies are core components to the W3C's Widget Access Request Policy, which specifies how mobile applications can request sensitive material. It is one of a number of specifications that are closely tied to the W3C's next generation standard for Web pages and applications, HTML5."

cancel ×

126 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748498)

...to a Borgified Steve Jobs.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748518)

We will see how nice Apple plays now.

Gobshyte much? (3, Informative)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750826)

We will see how nice Apple plays now.

This is a quote from Steve Jobs justifying their war on Flash.

"Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open."
Source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ [apple.com]

Re:Gobshyte much? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750994)

Open as in open specification.

Re:Gobshyte much? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36752726)

Open as in "Apple controls it". That's been Apple's M.O. for the better part of three decades.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (5, Funny)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748530)

Piss Off.

Signed,

Steve Jobs

(sent from my iPhone)

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748742)

The minions are working on a cease and desist letter now. You blaspheme Jobs. You will be punished.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749082)

LOL LOL

Signed,

Bill Gates

(Sent from my Windows 7 Phone)

Windows needs your permission to continue

If you started this action, continue.

Continue Cancel

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (2)

myurr (468709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748542)

Maybe the way to reform patent law is that if a company patents something in a published standard that they use, promote or approve of; then they lose the right to collect royalties for that patent. If only that could be enshrined in law somehow.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749210)

Sounds to me that you cohuld handle that with licensing, and not need to involve the lawmakers at all.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749530)

I think they should re introduce the stockades. If a company does this, then the executives must spend 48 hours in stockades on a public street and the company should be made to fund buckets of rotten fruit and veggies for passers buy to throw.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36752380)

I think pillory is what you're looking for. A stockade would defend them from thrown objects or would be a (military) prison camp.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749748)

Maybe the way to reform patent law is that if a company patents something in a published standard that they use, promote or approve of; then they lose the right to collect royalties for that patent. If only that could be enshrined in law somehow.

That could end up killing all FOSS patents as well. What usually happens is the patents are licensed under RAND terms (and yes, it could include "licensed for free") for that use only.

What Apple could do here is simply license those patents to everyone using it to implement HTML5. After all, if it's patented, then it'll probably be inside WebKit and the LGPL'd parts of KHTML left inside WebKit. And the LGPL still does require patent licensing of downstream uses. Which means it gives Google and everyone else a free pass (except possibly Opera and Microsoft who don't use WebKit for their mobile browsers).

Plus it would keep the patent trolls at bay - better Apple offering free licenses than a patent troll trying to extract money from *everyone* for the same thing. At least Apple is on the W3C. IPVentures and other "non-practicing entities" are probably thrilled at going through standards that come out looking for violations, after first seeing of said standards take off.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750948)

There's the problem that FOSS has painted itself into a corner with GPL 3.0 and patents. If you license code that implements a patented invention under GPL 3.0 you have to give everyone using the source code a license to use the patent. Problem is: You have to give everyone a license to use the patent for any use of the software.

So if Apple has a patent and allows everyone to use it to implement HTML5 for free, and you write code to implement HTML5 using that patent, that is fine. But if you wanted to license it under GPL 3.0, you could do that only if you convince Apple to allow use of the patent for _anything_ derived from that code. And you will likely not get that permission.

You could license the code under GPL 2.2. Anyone can then take your code and change it, as long as they use it to implement HTML5. If they use it for something else, that would patent infringement.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36753036)

Better yet, we could reform patent law and get rid of software patents altogether.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748568)

Were there rival Borg collectives?

I don't have all the details of this particular story, but on the surface it does sound like a dick move by Apple. The question though is what does Apple risk in licensing freely these patents?

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

Blob Pet (86206) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748620)

Think of Apple as the rebel Borg and Steve Jobs as Hugh.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748698)

I like to think of Steve Jobs as Seven of Nine.

Oh, wait...

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748780)

He has huge breasts!? Wow. Never mind.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748892)

Don't get to excited they're implants.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749810)

Don't get to excited they're implants.

It might be a tumor.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

WitnessForTheOffense (1669778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750032)

Eet's naht ah toomah!

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748764)

I think Steve Jobs, at least in his current role, is probably more like Lore when he led the confused Borg.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36750196)

Think of Apple as the rebel Borg and Steve Jobs as Hugh.

Steve Jobs is a greedy Ferengi!

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750700)

Think of Apple as the rebel Borg and Steve Jobs as Hugh.

Nah, Apple hasn't been a "rebel" in any sense of the word, not for a long, long time. They're no better than the IBM of old, which would do anything to suppress competition and squeeze more revenue out of its customers. On the Evil scale, Apple is pretty close to the bottom.

Personally, I think of Apple as being the Borg Collective, with Jobs being (ahem!) the Borg Queen.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748720)

I do remember an episode of Voyager where some Borg re-asserted their individualism and started a revolution. However they were quickly wiped out by the collective by the end of the episode. look for the same thing to happen here. :P

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748632)

I would prefer a rotten apple (with a single bite out of it) and green worm boring in and out.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

MrTempest (2368796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748672)

Patent trolls need to be lined up and shot for holding back progress, so disapointed to see what apple has become, and for that matter what google is becoming. Resistance is futile.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748710)

Agreed. Gates is just a rich old retired guy now. Kids have no idea who he is now. Might want to queue up a Zuckerborg icon while we're at it.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748812)

Agreed. Gates is just a rich old retired guy now. Kids have no idea who he is now. Might want to queue up a Zuckerborg icon while we're at it.

Look buddy, there are a bunch of us old guys still here (We're not dead yet, get it?). As should be obvious from most of the postings here, our connection to reality is tenuous at best. By taking away those old familiar icons you would be depriving us of one of the few elements of stability in our lives. That's not a nice thing to do to your elders.

"Nurse! Oh nurse! Is it time for my medication yet?"

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748964)

Look buddy, there are a bunch of us old guys still here (We're not dead yet, get it?). As should be obvious from most of the postings here, our connection to reality is tenuous at best. By taking away those old familiar icons you would be depriving us of one of the few elements of stability in our lives. That's not a nice thing to do to your elders.

*phbtbtbttt* Us 'old guys' have long since learned to turn off those icons because we remember the days of 300 baud modems and line editors and think the screen looks like crap with all of these stupid pictures on it.

We don't want your new-fangled multimedia -- well, except for the porn, we'll take that. Other than that, we mostly long for the old days of steam powered green screens and teletype consoles and green-bar printouts.

Uh, what? Is it time for bingo yet? That damned nurse keeps hiding the scotch.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

memyselfandeye (1849868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748986)

First it's our medicare... then it's our Borg icons!

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (3, Funny)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36751594)

Look at the 752### telling the 847### that he thinks he's old.

How quaint... ;)

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36753014)

Ha, I've got you all beat [slashdot.org] .

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748758)

The Borgification was selected because of Microsoft's "embrace and extend" manner. The Borg start out with natural humanoids and then implant things into them. Apple does not do this exactly. Apple just seeks to limit and control everything it touches. So if anything I would rather see a "King-Midas-ification" for Apple as everything they make is high priced, highly sought after and ultimately very limited in how it can be used.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748896)

Apple does not do this exactly.

Lol! you're kidding right? You need to be modded funny!

"Apple doesn't want to extend and extinguish... you're picturing the wrong Steve!" Hilarious!

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748920)

"high priced, highly sought after and ultimately very limited"

Like crack?

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749226)

How about a Romulan [wikipedia.org] -esque icon?

Since that's true, use a picture of an..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36752876)

Use a picture of an "asshole" then.

That seems to sum it up nicely.

Re:Since that's true, use a picture of an..... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36753050)

Sure... Suggest a gotse icon for slashdot... As if it is not on here enough.

Mod parent overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748842)

MetalliQaZ obviously doesn't get what the Borg icon means. Hint: it doesn't merely mean "the bad guy," it's a reference to how Microsoft products came about (particularly in the 1990s).

It just doesn't apply to Apple. There are plenty of much better ways to mock Apple.

Re:Mod parent overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36751286)

No truly single individual existed within the Borg Collective (with the possible sole exception of the Borg Queen), as they were linked into a hive mind.

So far so true of the hive like mind of fanbois and the individualistic Queen that they exist to serve..

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749034)

May be a borg stealing somebody's liver?

How I wish liver transplant was never invented!

actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749492)

it should be a stevefied borg.

Bill Gates just isnt that scary anymore (1)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749766)

Microsoft is now a parasite not a predator when it comes to linux and android. The most successful parasites
are the ones the host barely notices($5 per phone...grumble,grumble now here leave me alone). Apple on the other
hand is trying to use its patents to exterminate its competitors.

Re:Time to change Bill's 'Borg' icon (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36752218)

You know, I created this name 11 years ago when MS was the bad boy and the borg icon was made. These days I am thinking my dream of Apple taking over has become a nightmare. Before I even read these comments I was going to say the same thing. It seems before MS IBM was evil. It comes to show what true colors each company is when they are given power. Google is the next monopoly and they are the least evil. All companies become less evil when they lose power. .... With the exception of Oracle

Good! (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748502)

About time one of the bodies stood up to a member trying to turn it into a money tap. Should have started with rambus.

Re:Good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748570)

1) expunge the part of specs
2) expunge any further part of specs suggested by Apple.

"Your patented technologies are not welcome here. Go make your own World Wide Web."

Re:Good! (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748572)

About time one of the bodies stood up to a member trying to turn it into a money tap. Should have started with rambus.

Agreed, I think part of actually sitting on these committees and the like should be a "no submarine patent" clause, and a rule that says that since this stuff is meant to be open, it it inherently something which can't be patented.

Sitting in on the development of a standard and then patenting those components is dirty pool. Same, likewise, is the old MS trick of helping to develop the spec and then releasing something which is 'mostly' like the spec so you can have it be proprietary.

Sadly, in an age where patents are used to fight your competitors, actual open standards don't seem to be something companies are interested in fostering.

Re:Good! (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749140)

So you think Nokia played dirty pool when developing GSM and the technologies around it?

I guess the way the patent system exists now, if you don't patent it and try to be the "good guy" then some douche comes in from a patent troll company and sues you for "infringing their valuable IP" by doing such things as sorting songs in a user-customisable list.

There's no indication of what Apple wants to do with these patents - they could be defensive, they could be offensive, they could simply be a way to keep patent trolls from getting them (remember, pushing HTML5 is strongly in their interest). Apple hasn't said one way or the other what it plans to do, so right now it's simply speculation.

If they really are just seeing dollar signs for royalties then it would be remarkably short sighted for something they're actively hoping will be the future of the web.

citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749274)

What GSM technologies? The patent pool for mobile phone access like the GSM patent pool were created BY the process that created the GSM technology. It wasn't Nokia: "GSM are creating a standard, let's Patent it", it was Nokia: "Here are some patents, will they go in to the spec?".

Re:Good! (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36751392)

Knowing Apple, they're gonna patent troll with them. I've been seeing a lot of Apple in the news over the past few years, because they're trolling.

I say patent it and donate to some OpenSource group. I'm sure there's one that will manage the patent.

Re:Good! (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749222)

since this stuff is meant to be open, it it inherently something which can't be patented.

In most cases when the term "open standard" is used, it only means that anyone can participate in making it—not that it must be provided free of charge, and not that anyone can freely implement it.

Unfortunately.

Re:Good! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749578)

Wrong way around, an open standard is one that anybody can use. As a result of that it has to be free otherwise it prevents parties that give away their software from participating. The openness of the process to create it is not at all involved.

Re:Good! (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750198)

> Sitting in on the development of a standard and then
> patenting those components is dirty pool.

You may be interested in reading http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2010-April/003769.html [xiph.org] in this context...

But in general, what Apple is presumably doing here is making use of http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-with [w3.org]

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36750418)

This is not a submarine patent though, Apple disclosed both these patents to the W3C on 5th March 2009.

Re:Good! (4, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | more than 3 years ago | (#36752874)

Agreed, I think part of actually sitting on these committees and the like should be a "no submarine patent" clause, and a rule that says that since this stuff is meant to be open, it it inherently something which can't be patented.

That was actually the case with JEDEC. Part of their contract for membership was that members would file no patents (submarine or otherwise) on the memory specifications being discussed, and any patents already in process would be disclosed to the other members. The Courts actually found RAMBUS in violation of this part of the contract. However, since RAMBUS' violation was of a private contract between private party, and not a violation of U.S. law, any punishment had to originate in the contract. And the membership contract didn't specify any penalties for a member filing a submarine patent. Basically even though RAMBUS violated the intent and spirit of membership to screw over the other members, the only recourse available to JEDEC was to kick RAMBUS out of JEDEC.

So it's not enough merely to have these clauses. You must also list specific and brutal punishments for anyone violating them.

Trouble at the Top (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748514)

Isn't this just another sign that Steve Jobs is a control freak who cares more about control and doesn't care who he shits on? Could trying to strongarm the W3C do for Steve Jobs what hacking Milly Dowler's phone did for Rupert Murdoch? Neither big business nor the media will call out Jobs so isn't it down to the people to express their anger and boycott Apple products?

Re:Trouble at the Top (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748722)

You're an idiot. Regular people were quite upset with the voice mail hacking deal, even if big business didn't really care. People don't know what the W3C or HTML5 is, and really don't care anything about it even if they do.

Re:Trouble at the Top (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749028)

People aren't worried about Apple's control freakery if it's just about computers and iTunes like people didn't care about News International because it was just about politicians and celebrities. But Milly Dowler was one of us and an attack on us just like Apple trying to control the web is an attack on us. That changes everything.

For someone who thinks they're clever enough to call another person an idiot you don't seem to be very smart.

Re:Trouble at the Top (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749564)

"Us" is a very, very small and not terribly vocal part of the population. You wrongly assume that people that care about such things are a measurable part of the overall population. We're not. We're a fraction of a percent.

How did you talk her into it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748544)

My girlfriend has pretty severe endodemetriosis (sp?) so regular sexual intercourse is very painful for her, but we often use anal play as a substitute. We call it pigging.

Anyway to those of you out there that have talked your girlfriend into full blown anal sex, what was the method you used to get her to come around?

Re:How did you talk her into it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749788)

Sure - my method was quite straightforward.

First off i sold her my old ipod and then got her to install itunes on her laptop! Voila - one sodomized partner.

After so long... (1, Insightful)

lordSaurontheGreat (898628) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748590)

After sitting with their hands under their butts for soo long, W3C doesn't really deserve much of anything.

Re:After so long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749044)

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:After so long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749528)

Mod this up - the failure of HTML5 is as much their fault (eg endless squabbles) as it is that of browser vendors such as Apple.

Hang on... (1)

PSVMOrnot (885854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748614)

Taking a quick scan over the Widget Access Request Policy, it sounds a lot like the android app permissions, or for that matter the old java applet security model.

Quite how Apple could patent something like that in the first place eludes me.

There should be some sort of (harsh) penalty for filing an invalid patent to stop companies just filing for every little thing.

Re:Hang on... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748872)

It sounds more like an excuse for another stupid W3C marketing acronym to me. Sorry, I need to go and SOAP my OWL now.

Meh (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748616)

Reading the article, the W3C believes that there is enough prior art to invalidate the patents. The patents seem very broad to me. There is the chance that Apple will provide them royalty free to the consortium as it may be a defense patent. I however didn't read any "chastising" but I suggest you not read Florian's blog. It's filled with his usual dribble of near total speculation and very little basis in reality.

Re:Meh (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748642)

Oh, this is Florian? Enough said - then I'll skip to another submission.

Re:Meh (0)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748740)

Since Florian is omnipresent in any issue about software patents, I guess you're conceding the field to him.

A sane approach would be to consider all aspects of the issue at hand, perhaps avoiding Mueller's input if it bothers you enough. Hell, you should at least read his rantings, but if you lack the guts or intellect to do that without panicking or raging out, you can be excused from that burden.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748794)

I'm with those who ignore Florian.

This particular story has already appeared at least twice on Slashdot so why anyone should place any reliance on that particular source is beyond me.

(AC because registering ain't what it used to be.)

Re:Meh (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749086)

If you didn't read correctly above, I did read his rantings. As a courtesy to everyone else here I summarized them so they don't have to do so. If it bothers you so much that some is nice enough to do so that you attack them, sod off, as the English would say.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749300)

Look where his comment is nested, is not a reply to you...

Signed,
Your friendly neighborhood AC

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36748836)

There is the chance that Apple will provide them royalty free to the consortium as it may be a defense patent.

This is not a reason not to attack. By not attacking these patents, they get validated, and serves as further precedent for new, similar cases.

Arm EFFoton torpedoes!

Re:Meh (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749182)

>> .. as it may be a defense patent.

So??

You mean like Apples capacitive touchscreen patent (1)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749818)

Purely defensive lol!

They once told tales... (4, Interesting)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748666)

... of the wicked king Gate, who tormented his peoples by raping and pilaging the standards. For he believed that from his throne, only he could command what people who read and see, and how they should do it.

"Help us!" cried the people. "Will someone please do away with this madman and bring us technology that we can love and a man whom we can follow and trust!"

And lo, did a man step up, his man Jobs, his name noble and his deeds promising to be just. Gathering an army of Pods, he made for Gate's castle, unseating him and casting him from the realm.

His peoples set up shop, The Apple Store, and all was good for many years. The people prospered, adoring his fine gifts of Pods and Phones and TVs and Books.

Peace had come to the kingdom of Net...

... or so it seemed. For Jobs grew comfortable in his position, feeling that it was his right and his only to remain here. Turning to his closest servants his said to them: "We must keep the unworthy from this place! In order to keep Net free and clean, we must destroy the Flash!"

"Gordon?" came the reply.

"All of them," Jobs said, as he stood on his balcony. He then grinned, turning to face the seas of W3C, the Free Lands. "Tonight, the true battle begins... and nothing can save them. Not Google, nor their Androids." He patted at the papers in his cloak, the Patents of Power; the ancient documents that would mean he could never be defeated...

The Moral of the Story: Power Corrupts :)

Re:They once told tales... (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749116)

That was nicely done. I would say I see a future in Holywood for you but there was way too much plot in there for a movie...

Re:They once told tales... (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749428)

Thanks ;) Sorry for all the typos: at work, so had to write it in a rush... ;)

Re:They once told tales... (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36751080)

And lo, did a man step up, his man Jobs, his name noble and his deeds promising to be just.

Nice story, except that Jobs has never been this noble character you make him out to be.

Re:They once told tales... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36752146)

Brilliant! And here's an illustration that could go with that story:

http://modmyi.com/content/2196-eff-apple-like-jealous-feudal-lord.html

Apple being a prick? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748706)

No... never!

Re:Apple being a prick? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748822)

Corporations being pricks ... Never.

Apple is just a very visible prick when it comes to IT. Wish it weren't the case, but that is how it is.

Re:Apple being a prick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36750804)

No... never!

W3C is consorting wrong!

Litmus Test (1)

blackair (1967466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748726)

This is going to get real interesting, W3C has always been about fair use in my opinion. I suspect this move is to "protect" something in the IPhone (check the air quotes lol) but hampering a nacent non-prorietary technology is not good for them or the community. Better for Apple to create "framework" that enhances HTML 5 as part of their sdk.

Finally... (1)

BlastfireRS (2205212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748748)

It's nice to see someone take a stand for a change. I doubt it'll accomplish much, but it's a start...

Idea: (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36748948)

How about this. We make a national standards body, drawn from all the existing ones (or just promote ANSI or something). Make it partially government - it gets some funding, but doesn't answer to the executives or legislators. And, most important, give it the ability to "purchase" patents necessary for the standards. Classify it as eminent domain, so you don't even have the issue of companies demanding billions for their patents - they just get a flat rate in the range of $10,000 per patent.

Bam. Problem solved. It even encourages companies to make and publish standards (in hopes that they're adopted as national-level standards), as it makes them immune to patent trolls.

Re:Idea: (1)

Firemouth (1360899) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749042)

Yeah, that would never be abused...

Re:Idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36749204)

An even better idea is to disallow software/business method patents.

Re:Idea: (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749504)

Some patents cost a lot more than $10K of R&D to develop. Some require ten minutes of thought directed at a problem. A fixed price means that my strategy would be to flood any area with an upcoming standard with obvious patents. For each one, they could either take me to court (and win, but not recover costs, and I'd defend myself, by just talking nonsense a bit until I lost) or fork over the $10K.

Re:Idea: (1)

DemonGenius (2247652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749644)

Or how about web developers do their jobs properly and not implement non-open standards? Seems like Apple wants to go the way of IE, and we all know how that turned out. I say let them do as they wish.

Lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749172)

Can we please throw away the broken patent system, and just force company heads to duel at high noon when two companies have an argument?

Re:Lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750898)

Can we please throw away the broken patent system, and just force company heads to duel at high noon when two companies have an argument?

Nah, wouldn't last long enough to be entertaining. Take an empty industrial complex somewhere (we have plenty of those), fill it full of hi-def cameras, and turn these guys loose in there. No guns: they'll have to make do with whatever they find handy. Whoever wins gets the patents (and the broadcast rights.)

My guess is there'd be a lot fewer patent lawsuits.

Re:Lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36752222)

...I like this idea.
Though, can we make "teams", with some prisoners in each to help empty our jails and to secretly make sure both sides lose?

The referenced Article is incorrect! (2)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36749256)

W3C isn't at all saying that they are trying to invalide the patents in question. What they are asking for is prior art that they might be able to use to develop the new stack on top of, so that they can avoid any infringement of the related patents. And I quote, "Such information could suggest ways to define a specification that can achieve the working group's goals without implementers infringing on the disclosed patent." And further, "By making this call, neither the WARP PAG nor the W3C make nor imply any comment whatsoever on the relevance or validity of Apple's claims."

Bill

Apple is correct on this one (3, Insightful)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750176)

So Apple is just protecting itself from seeing the HTML spec and patenting it themselves.

There is a new law in the pipeline that will allow patents to be granted to companies even if someone else came up with the idea first. They have to sign something saying they independently developed the idea without seeing the prior work. That means the patent system is changing from First to Invent to "First Inventor to File" .. to make that law sound constitutional, they have redefined inventor to mean anyone who comes up with something independently. Obviously such a law is heavily in favor of companies with money. So, for example if you invent something .. but don't file a patent for it.. even if you describe your invention in detail on the internet .. a company can file a patent afterwards on the exact same invention as long as there is "reasonable grounds" to believe that the company didn't see your posting on the internet. Note, this obviously won't work both ways because 1) companies alway file patents immediately 2) with their top lawyers companies can prove their invention was well known. It will also allow companies to file patents on things written in books that weren't already patented. It's all to make life easier for the patent examiner .. no more bothering with checking prior art or googling a patent filing to see if someone else had the idea first .. now they just check the patent database then do a quick Lexis search of printed published media issue the patent! No more googling -- which is where a lot of new ideas exist.

The law is going to be a dream law for patent trolls.

Just google First Inventor to File for more on this topic. It's probably too late to do anything about it though.

If the new law was in place in 2006 .. Apple could have patented the idea of making a touchscreen smartphone with a screen larger than 2.5" inches. The reason Apple couldn't patent it was because the idea of large touchscreen phones were posted on the internet and in gadget blogs (including slashdot) by people who wanted them well before Apple served their need. But if this new law was in place, all Apple would have had to do is to claim they never saw the postings and file a patent on it.

To "streamline" the patent granting process, Congress has redefined "inventor" to mean any person who independently comes up with an invention. So a person can claim they independently came up with an invention .. therefore under the law someone who tries to patent an idea that's in the HTML spec is eligible for a patent because the law states that any "inventor" (as redefined) who is first to file is able to patent it. This makes it easier and cheaper for them to grant patents without having to do time consuming and costly prior art searches.

The law is called the America Invents Act and it has already passed Senate and House and is in reconciliation. Google it.

Re:Apple is correct on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36752126)

Congress has completely ignored the constitutional law anyway. The monopoly of intellectual property is granted to "authors and inventors" only. A corporation cannot be an author or an inventor--it's simply a distinction made by the tax code. It neither thinks nor produces anything. It's imaginary. It's only through corruption that all of this illicit activity--patent and copyright bundling, hoarding and resale--is allowed to continue.

Re:Apple is correct on this one (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36753044)

It's all to make life easier for the patent examiner .. no more bothering with checking prior art or googling a patent filing to see if someone else had the idea first .. now they just check the patent database then do a quick Lexis search of printed published media issue the patent!

Uh, those are prior art.

No, you're right that this makes life easier for the Examiner in that they don't have to resolve 35 USC 102(g) interferences between two independent inventors, but it doesn't do away with the requirements of 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 that the invention be new and nonobvious. There are still prior art searches, and America is not moving to a registration only system.

There are other issues with the AIA, and you raise several - like the bias towards large companies - but this isn't one of them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?