[DMCA-Activists] W3C Ad Hoc Discussion on Eolas v. Microsoft

[Seth Johnson]

> http://www.w3.org/2003/08/patent


W3C Holds Ad Hoc Meeting on Recent Court Decision, Launches Public
Discussion List

By now, most of those reading this know of the recent court case of Eolas v.
Microsoft in regards to US Patent 5,838,906. The patent claims to cover
mechanisms for embedding objects within distributed hypermedia documents,
where at least some of the object's data is located external to the
document, and there is a control path to the object's implementation to
support user interaction with the object. The implementation can be local or
distributed across a network, and is automatically invoked based upon type
information in the document or associated with the object's data. See the
patent claims for details and for the precise scope of the patent. This
patent may potentially have implications for the World Wide Web in general,
including specifications from W3C.

In the near term, Microsoft has indicated to W3C that they will very soon be
making changes to its Internet Explorer browser software in response to this
ruling. These changes may affect a large number of existing Web pages. W3C
does not yet have any indication of what action, if any, other vendors of
Web tools might take. In the longer term, should the court decision be
upheld in its current form, some participants suggested that other action
might be required. W3C has made efforts to contact the patent holder to
determine their future intentions, but has not received any reply.

W3C believes that it is important for the Web community to begin now to
consider and contribute to the range of technical options available.

As a result, W3C invited its Members as well as other key commercial and
open source software interests to attend an ad hoc meeting, hosted by
Macromedia, on Tuesday 19 August in San Francisco, California. The objective
of the meeting was to begin to evaluate potential near-term changes that
might be implemented in browsers, authoring tools, and Web sites as a result
of the court case.

There was widespread agreement that a solution that minimizes the effects of
changes to Web software, Web sites and the user experience was needed.
Microsoft presented several options that it has under consideration, and
benefited from constructive discussion of these options. In addition, the
meeting participants strongly supported clear communication on this matter,
including establishing a developer Web site and mailing list to coordinate
approaches for changes to Web sites and software, and providing early
releases of software and documentation. Further details on these will be
forthcoming.

To enable the Web community to consider and contribute to the technical
options, W3C has created a mailing list for public discussion on this
subject, address@hidden W3C is preparing a FAQ for public
distribution, and has already initiated consideration of longer-term,
standards-based solutions.

Please note that W3C has not completed any formal analysis of the patent in
question or the impact of the federal court opinion. W3C is not providing
any legal advice to our Members or the public on the direct impact of recent
developments, nor are we, by holding the meeting this past week, intending
any implication about validity or applicability of the patent. Those
implementing technologies in this arena will have to seek their own legal
counsel on particular implementations of W3C Recommendations.

W3C will continue to coordinate with the Web software vendors and
organizations, and keep our Members and the public informed as these efforts
progress.


Steven R Bratt, Chief Operating Officer
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Last updated: $Date: 2003/08/27 18:32:09

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://www.boson2x.org/article.php3?id_article=21

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.