04.02.08
Would Only a Perverted Web Consortium Accept Software Patents in the Specs?
“We’re disheartened because Microsoft helped W3C develop the very standards that they’ve failed to implement in their browser. We’re also dismayed to see Microsoft continue adding proprietary extensions to these standards when support for the essentials remains unfinished.”
–George Olsen, Web Standards Project
Is this what the world gets for having Microsoft’s Chris Wilson in the W3C? Remember JavaScript? Remember Ogg? This new article about HTML5 contains an eye-opening bit.
Patent problems
Most of the new elements and attributes can be implemented in free Web browser software such as the Gecko engine used by Mozilla products and derivatives and the open source WebKit. The sole possible exception is the authorization scheme incorporated by the copy attribute and the video-specific attributes associated with it: ticket and encoding.
Although the HTML5 specification itself does not dictate HDCP content protection, it is cited as the example case in the published draft, and any site that incorporated HDCP as its authorization method for video content would require an HDCP-compliant Web browser in order to view video content - whether on the PC or via home theater projector. Since HDCP compliance testing requires a per-download license fee, non-profit browser projects are unlikely to ever gain the required certification.
In order to understand why this is unacceptable, one needs to step back and remember how a former Microsoft employee who now works at Nokia, along with the ‘friends’ from Apple, wanted some more DRM and patents in HTML5. They vehemently objected to having Ogg facilitated.
A few references worth highlighting again:
- Nokia to W3C: Ogg is proprietary, we need DRM on the Web
- Microsoft urges Nokia to offer Windows Mobile devices
- Nokia dismisses Google open source Android platform
- Is Nokia Looking for Revenue in the Wrong Places?
- Nokia to put Microsoft PlayReady onto S60 & S40 cellphone platforms
- Microsoft: We Like DRM
It’s very important to ensure that W3C does not become the captive of selfish proprietary software companies. We have already seen what happened to ISO, which failed miserably. DRM and software patents render standards rather appalling and pointless. █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.