
Apple using patents to undermine open standards again - Wilya
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/12/09/apple-w3c
======
GHFigs
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
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-
Exc...](http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception)

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/2011Oct...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
webevents/2011OctDec/0131.html)

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
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
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
> _"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.

~~~
mbrubeck
>> "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._

Well, that's what they did in this case. They opted out of the standards
process, first by not bringing their proprietary extensions to any standards
group, and later by not joining the standards group that other parties formed.
No rule change will prevent outcomes like this.

I do agree that it's slightly better that they are at least W3C members (so
they had to disclose their patent claims at the last minute rather than not at
all), but that's the most marginal possible level of participation, and it
doesn't really leave the open web or the standards community in much better
shape.

------
DarkShikari
I don't understand why the W3C even allows this.

When companies submit _any documentation whatsoever_ as part of, say, an the
ITU H.264 standardization process, they are required to sign off on a form
that states whether they have patent claims on that documentation. If they do,
they declare that they are willing to license it under the terms required for
that specification -- no surprises.

This doesn't eliminate the possibility of later surprise patents, but it does
mean that it's unlikely any can come from anyone involved, because to even be
involved in the process, you have to declare legally that this won't happen.

Why does the W3C not do this? If a W3C standard requires that all patents
involved be licensed in a particular royalty-free manner, shouldn't even
_proposing_ an idea to the W3C require a declaration that one has no patents
on said idea, or that will license ones' patent in such a manner?

~~~
mbrubeck
The W3C has similar requirements. Apple worked around them by never proposing
touch events as a standard in the W3C [1]. The standardization effort was led
by other W3C members without Apple's participation.

[1]: Also, although Safari lead David Hyatt hinted way back in January 2007
that he would eventually bring touch events to the WHAT-WG , it never actually
happened: [http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-
whatwg.org/2007-Jan...](http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-
whatwg.org/2007-January/009213.html)

 _P.S. Greetings from a fellow Mudder! Thanks for ffmpeg! :)_

------
bradleyland
The author's framing of Apple's patent applications isn't congruent with the
way Apple views touch. The W3C, and standards advocates, view touch events in
the same way they do mouse clicks. They're interactions that should be
standardized and incorporated in to an event model for use in web
applications. Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they
pioneered. Their already granted pinch to zoom patents reflect this view.

So, to a standards body, Apple's actions are perceived as undermining
standards. To Apple, they're perceived as an act to protect a R&D investment.

~~~
ajross
" _Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered._
"

Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem,
right? Using questionable patents to prevent straightforward interoperability
requirements (i.e. make a web app to act like a native app) is, to me and I
suspect lots of others, a fundamentally evil act.

It's all well and good to Love you some Apple. But when they start acting
directly counter to the interests of the public, don't expect people to stand
behind them just because they make pretty phones.

~~~
dextorious
"""Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem,
right? """

Yeah, but tough luck.

Why didn't those complaining Opera/Mozilla devs come up with the same
interaction methods before Apple/fingerworks to give them to the public
domain?

"""when they start acting directly counter to the interests of the public"""

Well, selling computers instead of giving them with zero profit margin is
against the interest of the public too. Where do you draw the line? Why should
the public benefit from something Apple invented by bypassing Apple and
getting it from other vendors?

If you invoke the defense of the questionable patent, since "pinch-to-zoom" is
"too obvious", then why didn't anyone else come up with it before and patented
it?

It can't be both obvious AND non patented before. What it can be, though, and
I think it is, is "obvious in retrospect". Which is not the same as obvious at
all.

That said, I'm all for a short period (5-10 years?) where a patent can be
valid.

But I don't buy the "questionable" or "obvious" argument. If it's obvious,
patent it and grant it to the world, or at least establish some major prior-
art.

~~~
ajross
" _It can't be both obvious AND non patented before._ "

This is so wrong it makes my brain hurt to read it. Even beyond plainly bad
logic (you patent every "obvious" idea you have?!) it's contradicted by a
continuous stream of "bad patent with prior art" stories on this site and a
hundred others. Hell, I see some links to that sort of thing in this very
thread.

" _Why should the public benefit from something Apple invented by bypassing
Apple and getting it from other vendors?_ "

Because that's is the whole point of patent law, according to the US
constitution at least. And in any case that's not what's happening here. Apple
isn't trying to make sure we get pinch-zoom from them, they're trying to make
sure that web applications _cannot get pinch-zoom at all_.

~~~
dextorious
"""Even beyond plainly bad logic (you patent every "obvious" idea you
have?!)"""

If it's a multi-million making idea, why wouldn't I? (In my case, though, a
little Googling reveals that someone else has thought of it first.)

You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just
throwing them away?

""it's contradicted by a continuous stream of "bad patent with prior art"
stories on this site and a hundred others."""

How does this contradicts it? It cuts both ways, you know. If anything, it
makes it even easier for someone else, like Opera, to patent something, if
they can still patent it while prior art exists.

"""Because that's is the whole point of patent law, according to the US
constitution at least."""

The whole point of the patent law is that ...the public should benefit by
something X invented by bypassing X and getting it from their competitors?!!!!

You're reading it totally backwards. The whole point of the patent system is
to PROTECT X invention.

"""Apple isn't trying to make sure we get pinch-zoom from them, they're trying
to make sure that web applications cannot get pinch-zoom at all."""

Wrong again. Web applications get it in mobile Safari and Safari OS X. So,
yes, they're trying to make sure we get it "from them".

~~~
tensor
_You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just
throwing them away?_

As a matter of fact, I do. Let me present to you a very popular example, pinch
to zoom:

<http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html>

I'm sure you are confused, because Apple has a patent on this because they
invented it, right? Not quite. Apple has a very narrow patent on it for using
it in conjunction with a particular technology. To most people, applying pinch
to zoom on a capacitive screen verses some other type of screen is pretty
obvious, it works in any situation where you have multiple touch points.

None of this stopped Apple from patenting it. It didn't stop the patent system
from granting the patent. And perhaps worst of all, it doesn't stop Apple from
using this patent to claim that they did all sorts of work and _pioneered_
multitouch with gestures like pinch to zoom.

The problem many of have with Apple stems from exactly this type of situation.
While this is one of the most talked about, I have no doubt that you can find
many other examples of Apple enforcing trivial patents granted in a narrow
band, or in some caes like the Apple vs Samsung, not so narrow.

You don't typically see people complaining about patents on Latent Semantic
Indexing, Page Rank, or other complex algorithms that are truly non-obvious.
If our society truly believes that minor tweaks on existing ideas are grand
innovations worthy of patent protection, that's a very sad statement on the
human condition.

~~~
echaozh
I don't know if it counts as invention, but surely we've seen such
technologies in science fiction movies like the Minority Report. The idea must
have existed before.

------
ryoshu
[http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_touchscreen.html)

When did Apple file for its pinch-zoom patent? Jeff Han figured out a good way
to commoditize multi-touch hardware, but the pinch-zoom multi-touch interface
existed well before Apple made it mainstream.

~~~
huxley
It's possible that some of the patents came from Fingerworks which Apple
bought in 2005. Fingerworks had been doing touch based work since about 1998.

------
jstepien
I'm wondering what would be an effect of moving a standardisation organisation
to a software-patent-free country. In such case software patent issues
wouldn't be any obstacle for the organisation in their standardisation
processes. On the other hand, created standards would be useless in countries
where technologies covered in the standard had already been patented.

As a result, isn't it so that software patents in some countries inhibit the
development of standards on a global scale? That's troubling.

~~~
aristidb
I think just creating the standard is not the problem. If W3C had a policy "We
don't care about patents", nobody could sue THEM.

However, if anybody wanted to actually use those standards, he/she would get
sued.

------
mbr
I was under the impression that FSF had a collection of patents that have been
donated to them. If so, can it really be true that Apple's not violating any
of them? Proprietary companies use their patents to blackmail one another into
cross-licensing all the time. Although it's offensive, it's how business
operates. Why can't FSF do the same for the greater good of fostering the
establishment of standards that will benefit the Free Software community and
the public at large?

~~~
mbrubeck
Apple is the largest company in the world, or close to it. Even huge companies
with big legal teams and patent holdings like Samsung that get into patent
battles with Apple risk ending up with court injunctions against selling their
products. If the FSF decided to fight a (horribly lopsided) patent war against
Apple, the losing scenario could include injunctions and damages against open
source developers and users.

------
lincolnwebs
While I don't condone it, it's easy to understand Apple's reasoning.

The longer they can delay the standardization of touch events, the easier it
is for them to maintain dominance in the tablet and phone markets with their
UX design & proprietary apps marketplace ("those web apps are harder to use
because they don't behave with touch right!").

Of course they don't want a standard yet. They're the ones doing it best and
reaping the rewards.

------
namank
This is interesting.

To me, it seem, that Apple knows its a lost battle before it even begins. So
the only purpose here is to delay the open standard for as long as possible.

Why do I think this? Because they filed it at the last minute...not once, not
twice, but three time!

------
hackermom
Watch out, Haavard is at it again!

