EFFector Vol. 14, No. 29 Oct. 4, 2001 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
EFFector Vol. 14, No. 29 Oct. 4, 2001 editors@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
For more information on EFF activities & alerts: http://www.eff.org/
To join EFF or make an additional donation:
http://www.eff.org/support/
EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is currently considering a controversial new policy on the treatment of patent claims in the web standards process. The W3C has extended its deadline for public comments on the policy to Thursday, October 11. The policy, and the comments received, will be discussed at a W3C meeting on Monday, October 15.
The proposed change would establish, for the first time, a specific W3C policy on patents. Unfortunately, this policy, advocated by large patent-holding members of the Consortium, allows some web standards to require licensing fees for implementation. EFF urges the public to examine and comment on this policy.
EFF urges interested members of the public to submit their comments on
the draft by writing to
www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
(Your address and comments will be archived and visible to the public.)
Because the details of the proposed policy are rather intricate, EFF encourages you to read carefully the policy draft, as well as the associated W3C FAQ documents. These documents clear up some common misconceptions -- for example, some commentators mistakenly thought that ALL W3C technologies would require license fees under the proposed policy. (W3C itself holds no patents on web technologies, and is not planning to charge a fee for use of the web.)
Email your comments to the W3C's Patent Policy Working group today. Feel free to use the EFF's sample letter below as a starting point for your comments. Let the W3C know that you are concerned about the impact of patents on the users of web standards. Please be polite and concise, but firm.
You can use this sample letter to the World Wide Web Consortium as a starting point for your own comments:
World Wide Web Consortium
Patent Policy Working Group
www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Dear W3C Patent Policy Working Group:
I'm concerned about the recent Patent Policy Framework draft, which could allow W3C members to charge royalty fees for technologies included in web standards.
In particular, I object to the inclusion of a "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing option in the proposed policy. I believe that the exclusive use of a "royalty-free" (RF) licensing model is in the best interests of the Internet community, and that RAND licensing would always necessarily exclude some would-be implementors, especially among open source and free software developers.
I applaud the W3C for its tradition of providing open-source reference implementations and its work to promote a wide variety of interoperable implementations of its open standards. The W3C can best continue its work of "leading the Web to its full potential" by continuing this tradition, and saying no to RAND licensing.
Sincerely,
[Your name & address]
The World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/), founded in 1994 by WWW inventor Tim Berners-Lee, is a membership-based organization which makes recommendations on technology standards for the web. Some of its standardization work has included HTML, HTTP, PNG, and XML; W3C-recommended technologies have frequently had a far-reaching impact.
W3C did not have a published patent policy in the past; this change would create such a policy for the first time. However, W3C has never before knowingly promoted standards which are encumbered by patents; this policy would provide a way for W3C to recommend certain technologies as web standards even when those technologies are known to be encumbered.
The proposed policy permits new W3C working groups (committees which are chartered to create standards) to allow participating companies to reserve the right to charge royalty fees for licensing patents relating to new standards. Working groups would be expected to announce, at the time they are created, whether or not patent holders expected to receive licensing fees.
If a working group decided to permit royalties to be charged, the participating companies would be expected to license relevant patents under a "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" (RAND) license arrangement. Under a RAND license, each licensee is expected to pay a pre-determined royalty to the licensor; this fee is supposed to be small ("reasonable") and the same for each licensee ("non-discriminatory").
However, RAND licensing may still shut out open source/free software, non-commercial, and smaller commercial software developers. While large companies can easily pay (and routinely do pay) license fees in order to implement technology, small developers and those who distribute software at no charge may find even the most "reasonable" licensing terms to be a significant barrier.
EFF is concerned that public standards for communications technology should remain open and usable by everyone, not constrained by licensing restrictions. The "Royalty-Free" (RF) licensing tradition is worth defending, and best serves W3C's mission of developing the "full potential" of the web as an open medium.
For more information on the proposed policy:
Draft "W3C Patent Policy Framework":
(This is the controversial proposed W3C policy on patents in the W3C
standards process.)
Background information from W3C:
W3C's interim response to recent public comment:
Adam Warner's criticisms of the policy, and archive of related information:
Analysis and comment from EFF board member John Gilmore:
Archive of all public comments received by W3C so far:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil liberties
organization working to protect rights in the digital world. Founded in
1990, EFF actively encourages and challenges industry and government to
support free expression, privacy, and openness in the information
society. EFF is a member-supported organization and maintains one of the
most linked-to Web sites in the world:
http://www.eff.org/
Seth Schoen, EFF Staff Technologist
schoen@eff.org
+1 415 436 9333 x107
- end -
WHAT: "BayFF" Panel Discussion on the new Anti-Terrorism Legislation,
and its effects on civil liberties
WHEN: Thursday, October 11th, 2001 - 6pm PT
WHO: Ann Brick - Staff Attorney, ACLU of Northern California
Cindy Cohn - Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Panel Moderator
Robert Rubin- Legal Director, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the SF Bay Area
Kevin Poulsen - Journalist, Security Focus Magazine
Lee Tien - Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
WHERE: San Francisco Public Library
Room: Koret Auditorium
100 Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 - near Civic Center BART Station
Tel: 415-557-4400 (for directions only)
For more information contact Katina: (415) 436-9333 x101
katina@eff.org
This event is free and open to the general public. Food and beverages will be available.
This forum is co-sponsored by the Free Expression Network West (FEN-West), an alliance of organizations dedicated to protecting the First Amendment right of free expression and the values it represents.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil
liberties organization working to protect rights in the digital world.
For more information, please see EFF's website ( http://www.eff.org ), or contact:
Katina Bishop
EFF Director of Education and Offline Activism
+1-415-436-9333 x101
katina@eff.org
- end -
The US Supreme Court has set a date and time, November 28, 2001, 10am ET, for oral argument in the ACLU, EFF, et al., legal challenge to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA, or "CDA-2"). The case is officially known as ACLU v. Ashcroft (formerly ACLU v. Reno II). This hearing was originally not expected until early 2002.
Plaintiffs' brief in the case, submitted September 20, 2001, claims the
statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The brief
is available online at:
Six powerfully written
amici curiae briefs filed in support of plaintiffs by a wide range of
organizations, from the US Chamber of Commerce to
Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, are now becoming available from links at bottom of the
ACLU press release at:
- end -
On October 1, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors became the first municipal legislative body in the world to pass an ordinance prohibiting the use of Internet blocking software, also known as filtering software or censorware, on Internet access terminals administered by the City and County of San Francisco. The city recognized in the ordinance that Internet blocking software products "regularly block access to useful and constitutionally protected information."
Although passed with an amendment excluding terminals the city designates exclusively or primarily for individuals under the age of 13 from the prohibition on Internet blocking software, the ordinance demonstrates San Francisco city government's strong support for the earlier decision of the San Francisco Public Library system to reject approximately $20,000 in funding tied to federal Internet blocking requirements.
San Francisco Supervisor Mark Leno proposed the ordinance, which was supported by Susan Hildreth, San Francisco City Librarian.
EFF Online Activist Will Doherty testified in favor of the ordinance at a hearing before the Rules Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
A copy of the ordinance is available on the EFF website at:
- end -
This is a very brief update on the Dmitry Sklarov case. At the hearing on September 24, the following happened:
1) Joe Burton became the defense attorney for Elcomsoft and dropped representation for Dmitry Sklyarov.
2) John Keker, a well-known attorney from the San Francisco firm Keker and Van Nest, became the new defense attorney for Dmitry Sklyarov.
3) The court agreed to a next hearing date of November 26 at which time the schedule will be set for motions in the trial.
In the meantime, the discovery process of the trial is ongoing.
- end -
The Electronic Frontier Foundation seeks a Media intern to focus on media tasks such as media interview assignments, media releases, media professional relationships, and mediabase and media coverage archival. Basic HTML skills and general computer competence helpful. Very helpful if you have your own laptop and/or home Internet access.
Interns will be in the San Francisco Bay Area, and in the EFF office at least two days per week. School credit may be available.
Timeframe: Needed immediately, for each semester. Minimum commitment 2 days per week for at least three months.
For more information, see the EFF website at:
http://www.eff.org/jobs#vol0
Or contact Will Doherty, Online Activist / Media Relations, media-inters@eff.org
- end -
EFF extends its gratitude to Matt Gallaway, Legal Editor at Aspen Legal Media, for arranging the donation of Prof. Paul Goldstein's 4 volume Copyright Law treatise.
Aspen Law & Business is an imprint of Aspen Publishers, Inc., which for more
than 40 years has served the needs of legal, business, and health care
professionals with timely books, periodicals, and information services by
leading authorities. Today, Aspen publishes more than 400 journals,
newsletters, electronic products, and looseleaf reference manuals and has
more than 1,000 books in print.
http://www.aspenpublishers.com/
- end -
EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/
Editors:
Katina Bishop, EFF Education & Offline Activism Director
Stanton McCandlish, EFF Technical Director/Webmaster
editors@eff.org
To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
http://www.eff.org/support/
Membership & donation queries: membership@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries: ask@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually at will.
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from EFFector via the Web, go to:
To subscribe to EFFector via e-mail, send to majordomo@eff.org a message BODY (not
subject) of:
subscribe effector
The list server will send you a confirmation code and then add you to a
subscription list for EFFector (after you return the confirmation code;
instructions will be in the confirmation e-mail).
To unsubscribe, send a similar message body to the same address, like
so:
unsubscribe effector
(Please ask listmaster@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if this does not work for you for some reason.)
To change your address, send both commands at once, one per line (i.e., unsubscribe your old address, and subscribe your new address).
Back issues are available at:
http://www.eff.org/effector
To get the latest issue, send any message to effector-reflector@eff.org
(or er@eff.org),
and it will be mailed to you automatically. You can also get, via the Web:
Return to EFFector Newsletters Index
Please send any questions or comments to webmaster@eff.org
![[*]](EFFector, Vol_ 14, No_ 18; Aug_ 8, 2001_files/home_blue_icon.gif){kind=icon}
EFF Welcome Page