Patents and Open Standards: When Open Standards are not Open
Technology is a great equalizer. It provides accessibility to information and opportunity. The mainstream of the developed world has led the way in the adoption and application of information and communication technology (ICT), while leaving specific populations of the developed world, and the vast majority of the developing world to lag behind.
One of the main factors in the global proliferation of world wide web has been the availability of an open, non-proprietary standard for information authoring and interchange, W3C's HTML. The web is ubiquitous, an international platform for information interchange that developed in less than a decade. Countless businesses and fortunes have been created (and in cases, lost) out of the succesful proliferation of an open standard. Thanks to the W3C, and some innovative technologies, accesibility of the web has continued to improve and should continue to do so. Should? Why not will? The uncertainty comes from the insertion of commercial and intellectual property issues in the open standards process.
Patents are a way an inventor can protect an idea and profit from it. The process of invention, be it a mechanical device, process, or software, can take years of hard work and capital investment. Patents are granted by a country's patent organization and provide protection to the inventor for a period of time up to 20 years. Any company or organization that wishes to implement or sell a product based upon the patented technology must seek a license, and in most cases, pay a royalty to the inventor. Conceptually, the concept is reasonable, but subject to abuse. Today, we find that large companies, and even universities, are amassing large patent portfolios, and then seeking licensees who will pay either fixed amounts for a right to use the patent, or contiuning payments based upon the numbers of products sold that utilize the patent.
In the past decade, there has been a significant growth in software patents. Tangible inventions, such as a new type of motor, or hinge mechanism, are relatively easy to understand. Software patents are less tangible. Algorithms, concepts, and processes become patents, seemingly, too easily. Perhaps it is the fault of the patent examinations, but there have been numerous cases where software is patented, that clearly had pre-existing examples or implementations.
We have seen efforts by large corporations to exercise their patent rights for broadly accepted, and seemingly open technologies, such as the GIF and JPEG file formats and the concept of hyperlinking itself. The revenue that successful pursuit of those patent claims would produce could be astronomical for the patent holder, but also negatively impact acceptance or use of important technologies. Some companies exist solely for the purpose of acquiring patents and generating revenue from licensing.
When standards are developed and declared as open, patents too often come into the picture. This is seen recently with the VoiceXML standard being developed within W3C. VoiceXML can prove important in providing accessibility to web content and transactions over any telephone. The standard was originally developed by some major corporations in telecommunications and then was brought into the VoiceBrowsing effort within W3C. But along with the publically claimed “open standard” came some significant patent claims. The result is an organization that prides itself on creating open standards that can be freely implemented, promoting a standard that requires licensing and royalty payments.
W3C recommendations have proven critical in the development of barrier free information for persons with disabilities, and for those who face the challenges of literacy, those with limited educational opportunities, the growing elderly popoulations, and for those whose geo-economic realities do not allow participation in the internet revolution on an equal footing with those in the industrialized nations. When mainstream commercial technologies do no not meet the needs of the under-served populations (sadly, a common occurence), organizations that serve those populations, can use open standards to develop solutions to the very real problems faced. Open standards allow indigenous vendors and non-profit groups to develop solutions, particularly those that can be implemented economically without payment of royalties..
Today, the W3C Recommendations SMIL, HTML, and XML are key elements of the DAISY standard for accessible multimedia books. DAISY is a key component of efforts to develop and distribute accessible information globally. Currently there are efforts exploring the automatic transformation of DAISY publications into VoiceXML, to further lower the barrier of information access to simply the availability of a public telephone.
Much as the web today offers a wealth of information, including news from multiple sources, health issues, government services, educational content,and information on human rights, to anyone able to read and access a public web terminal, telephony-based web access will extend the reach of this information to a much broader audience internationally. Imagine, if you can, what the web would be like today had the stakeholders in HTML and HTTP sought licensing fees for implementation of HTML content and services.
Specifications from the VBWG can do much to extend the web to those currently unable to benefit from it, but encumbering those specifications with unclear licensing and fees will raise a new barrier to utilization of web standards, in contrast to the barriers that are being broken down with other output from the W3C.