In article <9fs7e4-et3.ln1@g...>, 
simon@j... says...
> in message <MPG.2079dd4f680b7f88989713@n...>, Grant Robertson
> ('bogus@b...') wrote:
> >  I am inventing an XML standard and
> > am trying to decide if I should go to the trouble and expense of
> > patenting it.
> 
> Absolutely not - in your own interest. Before the Web, there were dozens of
> perfectly good distributed hypertext systems. Only problem - they were all
> proprietary and so none of them got traction. If you overprotect
> your 'invention', no-one will use it.

I'm sorry, I didn't mention that I also intend to license the standard 
freely in accordance with the W3C's patent policy. The only restriction I 
would place on the license would be that no one could extend the standard 
without going through the standards body. No one would be allowed to 
"embrace and extend" for proprietary purposes as Microsoft is fond of 
doing. 

Here are some articles that deal with the issue of patents and standards:

http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/BobSutor?
entry=grading_open_standards_what_does

http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/09/open_standards_.html


I agree that HTML probably wouldn't have taken off like it did if there 
were restrictions on how it could be extended. But then HTML was pretty 
simple and rather lame back then. Most people had never heard of a markup 
language at the time. That was then, this is now. Markup languages are 
big business and there are lots of sharks and submarines in the waters 
looking to score big by claiming rights to something that isn't properly 
protected. The Open Document Format standard is patented by Sun with a 
free license and most of the rest of the world is working on adopting it. 
But since it is protected, Microsoft can't "embrace and extend" it so 
they have to resort to issuing a competing standard that no one is paying 
attention to.

So, I believe the factors that currently foster adoption are:

1) Free, as in beer.

2) Flexibility.

3) Controlled by an independent, non-commercial standards body.

4) Protected from unauthorized, proprietary "extension." 
 

> People think Tim Berners Lee was foolish for 'giving away' the Web. But all
> the inventors of the Web's predecessors are now marginal or out of
> business all together, whereas Sir Tim has his knighthood, a great deal of
> respect and influence in the community, and a very nice salary, thank you.

Exactly. I keep telling my friends that Linus Torvolds hasn't made a 
penny from licensing Linux, but he always has a job. Now, whether Linux 
is patented or not, I don't know. So it may be a bad analogy.


> It's better to have a little bit of something very big than the whole of
> something very small.

Also, what I have said many times. All I want is to earn a modest salary 
as an employee of the non-profit promoting the standard. You know the W3C 
is not an all volunteer operation, after all.


> They'll only try if it gets traction - and if you patent it it will never
> get traction.
> 
> > Thanks for the info. Something tells me that there wouldn't be such a
> > brouhaha over who owns patents to XML if W3C had crafted a well designed
> > patent when they first invented XML years ago.
> 
> But no-one would be using XML if they had. XML is only a prolix syntax for
> S-Expressions, and S-Expressions, though very flexible, are not the only
> flexible expression of data. If XML were encumbered with patents, we'd all
> be using something different.

I don't agree with that logic but that is just my opinion. Crayola 
patented their crayons but you can still draw lots of pretty pictures 
with them. If the patents are licensed for free, with no restrictions on 
how the technology can be used, then there is nothing stopping anyone 
from building new patents based on the technology, or just making up new 
inventions or standards based on the other patent and never patenting 
that new part. Just as there is nothing stopping anyone from extending an 
unpatented, prior-art and patenting the extension or improvement. Almost 
no patents are on entirely new things with no prior art. The patent only 
covers what is new and different. If the owner of the new patent wants to 
do anything with their new technology then they must have rights to use 
the prior art. This is achieved either through licensing existing patents 
or simply using the unpatented, prior-art for free.

If I patent my standard, I will be able to license it for free. But I 
will also be able to place restrictions on that license. I can say it is 
free only so long as you don't attempt to "embrace and extend" the 
standard for proprietary purposes. This is the best of both worlds.