Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/12/09/apple-w3c

by Wilya • 15 years ago

415 60 15 years ago

my.opera.com

bradleyland2• 15 years ago

The author's framing of Apple's patent applications isn't congruent with the way Apple views touch. The W3C, and standards advocates, view touch events in the same way they do mouse clicks. They're interactions that should be standardized and incorporated in to an event model for use in web applications. Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered. Their already granted pinch to zoom patents reflect this view.

So, to a standards body, Apple's actions are perceived as undermining standards. To Apple, they're perceived as an act to protect a R&D investment.

mbrubeck10• 15 years ago

And yet Apple extended the web platform with these APIs, shipped them in a production browser, documented them (without labeling them as experimental or proprietary), published web content that used them, and encouraged other web developers to do the same [1]. Other WebKit vendors followed suit and implemented Apple's APIs, including Android, BlackBerry, and Nokia. Then other browser vendors like Opera followed. Mozilla had our own independently-developed multitouch API [2] but earlier this year we implemented WebKit-style touch events in Gecko and helped lead the standardization process at the W3C. They were already a de-facto standard; we had to implement them if we wanted mobile Firefox to work with popular sites like Google Maps.

If Apple had no intention of ever allowing other browsers to implement touch events, then they could at least have shipped them with a vendor prefix, as Mozilla did with our "MozTouchMove" events (and other experimental or pre-standard APIs). Instead they polluted the global namespace, created a de-facto standard, and never gave a word of feedback to the standards effort that emerged around their work. Only at the very end of the process, after supporting the API in their production browser for four years, did they suddenly act to block the acceptance of a de-jure standard based on the de-facto standard they created.

Touch events are not just for novel multi-touch scenarios; in browsers like Safari they are necessary even for single-touch drag and drop handling that has been possible in desktop browsers for over a decade. If the W3C and Apple can't work out a royalty-free licensing arrangement for Apple's essential claims, then this seems very likely to fragment the mobile web even further by creating yet more "works only in Safari" pages. While we don't know the outcome yet, the path Apple has taken so far does not reflect the responsibility or stewardship toward the web that I'd like to see from a major browser vendor.

The mobile web is already in terrible shape when it comes to pages working across browsers. Do you think Google would ever push an update to Gmail that makes it not work in Firefox? Well they did exactly that to mobile Gmail this year, and didn't fix it until a month later [3]. It's like the 1990s browser war all over again. Keeping the web platform based on open standards is essential to keep it open to new browsers and technologies.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/IOs/#documentation/Apple...

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Touch_events_%28Mozilla...

[3] http://bugzil.la/678150

(I work for Mozilla and I am co-editor of the W3C Touch Events spec, but these opinions are my own.)

EDIT: I think your comment is an accurate reflection of Apple's priorities -- I'm arguing against Apple's actions, not against your comment.

MatthewPhillips• 15 years ago

Do you think Apple is against W3C adopting their implementation of touch events or are they against any non-Safari browser having touch? If it's the former the working group can just adapt the API a bit and rely on libraries to provide the compatibility layer.

untog2• 15 years ago

The author doesn't seem that concerned with the patent applications themselves, rather Apple repeatedly throwing them at the standardisation process.

Every time that it's happened so far they've done it at the last minute and halted the standardisation process, only to find that the patents weren't even relevant anyway.

Given the insane amount of time that the standardisation bodies take anyway, Apple's approach is extremely unhelpful.

huxley2• 15 years ago

Not disagreeing that it is an area where Apple should have behaved better, but read up about what Rambus did to the JEDEC standards body for an example of really nasty behaviour.

ajross4• 15 years ago

"Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered."

Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? Using questionable patents to prevent straightforward interoperability requirements (i.e. make a web app to act like a native app) is, to me and I suspect lots of others, a fundamentally evil act.

It's all well and good to Love you some Apple. But when they start acting directly counter to the interests of the public, don't expect people to stand behind them just because they make pretty phones.

dextorious4• 15 years ago

"""Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? """

Yeah, but tough luck.

Why didn't those complaining Opera/Mozilla devs come up with the same interaction methods before Apple/fingerworks to give them to the public domain?

"""when they start acting directly counter to the interests of the public"""

Well, selling computers instead of giving them with zero profit margin is against the interest of the public too. Where do you draw the line? Why should the public benefit from something Apple invented by bypassing Apple and getting it from other vendors?

If you invoke the defense of the questionable patent, since "pinch-to-zoom" is "too obvious", then why didn't anyone else come up with it before and patented it?

It can't be both obvious AND non patented before. What it can be, though, and I think it is, is "obvious in retrospect". Which is not the same as obvious at all.

That said, I'm all for a short period (5-10 years?) where a patent can be valid.

But I don't buy the "questionable" or "obvious" argument. If it's obvious, patent it and grant it to the world, or at least establish some major prior-art.

bradleyland2• 15 years ago

My opinion is that Apple's patents on touch interactive are bad for consumers and bad for progress. Imagine if Xerox had patented the mouse, and never licensed it to other computer makers on the terms they did. How long would UI design have stagnated on text interfaces? Would something else more/less useful arisen to work around the patent?

I don't know exactly how to express this, but maybe it's best to say that I'm always "concerned" when an argument occurs where one party is fighting the wrong battle. That's also just an opinion. "Apple shouldn't have these touch patents" is a lot harder fight to win than "Apple is a bad company and does mean things to the W3C." I question the effectiveness of the latter though. Say you convince people that Apple is a meanie and is undermining standards, have you produced any significant outcome that will change things? Apple's historical disposition hasn't exactly been yielding to consumers' interests. They decide what consumers want, build it, then make a ton of money. You have to find a way to assault that head on, or use the power of law to prevent them from using these tactics.

Convincing those who are paying attention that Apple undermining standards won't amount to much.

praptak• 15 years ago

> Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered.

"Pioneered" is a strong word for a technology whose development they had nothing to do with, then just bought it out so that no one else can innovate upon it: http://sysop073.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-multitouched-your-mom...

tosseraccount• 15 years ago

"Apple views touch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered."

That's the problem. The marketing that "Apple invented the PC, Apple invented the GUI, Apple invented music players, apple invented pads" is one thing. But to actually continually threaten competitors with law suits is just being a bully.

nextparadigms• 15 years ago

Just imagine what would've happened to the Web if everyone ever making a technology for the Web would've thought like Apple.

hackermom• 15 years ago

Watch out, Haavard is at it again!

GHFigs2• 15 years ago

Alternate title:"Apple disclosing patents ahead of deadline in accordance with W3C patent policy, again."

The sense of malice seems to be inferred from Apple not disclosing these sooner, but I question what the point is of having a deadline if disclosures a month prior to it are going to be considered disruptive. If this was going undermine the process, shouldn't the deadline have been sooner?

mbrubeck10• 15 years ago

The case where a W3C member has essential claims that aren't available under W3C royalty-free licensing requirements is treated as an "exception" to W3C policy [1], not an expected part of the normal process. It requires formation of a special committee and is truly disruptive. Apple seems to be one of the only members willing to do it regularly.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exc...

What would have been less disruptive is if Apple had any other communication at all with the W3C Web Events working since it was formed more than a year ago.

Actually participating in a working group that is working an APIs they are shipping is the normal way for a W3C member to help shape a standard. If they had participated in the group, then the patents would have come up during the disclosure period for the First Public Working Draft back in May 2011. Instead, they recently even asked for other, unrelated standards (like the Game Pad API) to be moved to a different working group so they can continue to avoid participation in the Web Events WG [2].

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2011Oct...

Or, better, Apple could have brought touch events to the W3C themselves after they first shipped them in Safari back in 2007. (Even better is to propose new standards before shipping them in a production browser, so that other parties can provide feedback before the standard is locked in by content compatibility - but I understand that proprietary browser vendors won't always do this because of secrecy around product launches.)

And of course, not patenting their extensions to the web platform would also be great. :(

roc2• 15 years ago

I'd be down for considering corporations that retain software patents [1] to be malicious. But I'm not sure I can get behind intimating that groups are being maliciously or aloofly disruptive simply because they aren't participating in Open Source working groups to the degree that we might like.

Again, if the timing is disruptive, the group should have set an earlier deadline for disclosure. If Apple's honoring the rules, then their timing is only as disruptive as the rules allowed in the first place. So it seems more reasonable to critique and revise the rules than to cast aspersions about dedication and motives.

[1] i.e. do not simply file for and retain ownership for defensive purposes, but freely license them to prevent any offensive use on their part.

GHFigs2• 15 years ago

Would it have been less disruptive in May? It's very clear that Apple's participation would have been preferable, but is there any other way this would have gone down even with it?

(Your posts have been much more informative than the submission, thank you.)

notatoad3• 15 years ago

The letter of the law is one thing, being a dick is another. It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them. They also knew that the w3c and the browser vendors were working on this. They let everybody work on the standard while they planned to throw their legal team at it at the last minute. It doesn't matter what the rules are, apple is acting maliciously here.

adestefan• 15 years ago

It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them.

You're assuming the people working with the W3C even knew that Apple had these patents. Apple is a big corporation. The people that are working with the W3C probably didn't even look for the patents themselves, it was probably the legal department that finally said, "Oh here's some that might apply."

napierzaza• 15 years ago

Because why? It took time for them to research their patents or prepare the submission? Why are you assuming that everything could have somehow been ready instantly at a moments notice? If they set a deadline they should be happy that Apple abides by it.

haberman• 15 years ago

Just to offer a condensed version of mbrubeck's detailed information: Apple have played this strategically in the W3C so they could make this patent disclosure as late as possible, despite the fact that they have been shipping these supposedly patented APIs in Safari since 2007 and encouraging developers to use them, and despite the fact that this proposed standard was first published back in May.

The deadline was not sooner only because Apple strategically avoided joining the relevant working group, which would have forced an earlier disclosure.

mbrubeck10• 15 years ago

I think Haavard's feelings about Apple deliberately causing delays are mostly based on the previous cases he wrote about, like the one where Apple submitted their disclosure on day 149 of the 150-day exclusion period, and then caused further delays by failing to respond to questions from the Patent Advisory Group. And after this huge waste of time, the PAG ultimately determined that Apple's patents didn't even apply to the spec in question:

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/10/30/apple-w3c-patent...

ryoshu• 15 years ago

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos_his_breakthrough_tou...

When did Apple file for its pinch-zoom patent? Jeff Han figured out a good way to commoditize multi-touch hardware, but the pinch-zoom multi-touch interface existed well before Apple made it mainstream.

huxley2• 15 years ago

It's possible that some of the patents came from Fingerworks which Apple bought in 2005. Fingerworks had been doing touch based work since about 1998.

mbr• 15 years ago

I was under the impression that FSF had a collection of patents that have been donated to them. If so, can it really be true that Apple's not violating any of them? Proprietary companies use their patents to blackmail one another into cross-licensing all the time. Although it's offensive, it's how business operates. Why can't FSF do the same for the greater good of fostering the establishment of standards that will benefit the Free Software community and the public at large?

mbrubeck10• 15 years ago

Apple is the largest company in the world, or close to it. Even huge companies with big legal teams and patent holdings like Samsung that get into patent battles with Apple risk ending up with court injunctions against selling their products. If the FSF decided to fight a (horribly lopsided) patent war against Apple, the losing scenario could include injunctions and damages against open source developers and users.

jstepien• 15 years ago

I'm wondering what would be an effect of moving a standardisation organisation to a software-patent-free country. In such case software patent issues wouldn't be any obstacle for the organisation in their standardisation processes. On the other hand, created standards would be useless in countries where technologies covered in the standard had already been patented.

As a result, isn't it so that software patents in some countries inhibit the development of standards on a global scale? That's troubling.

CaveTech• 15 years ago

Even if the standards process could be carried out in another country, as you said, countries where patents exist would not be able to implement the resulting standard. The end result would be an api that is anything but standard.

It's important that the groups work slowly to clear all legal issues so that standards can truly be used on a global scale.

aristidb• 15 years ago

I think just creating the standard is not the problem. If W3C had a policy "We don't care about patents", nobody could sue THEM.

However, if anybody wanted to actually use those standards, he/she would get sued.

bzbarsky• 15 years ago

In this case the standard would be largely implemented by 4 or 5 organizations, all but one of which are based in the US (Mozilla, Opera, Apple, Google, Microsoft, if you count Google and Apple separately).

I can't speak for the validity of the patents involved in Norway or whether Apple could pursue Opera for distributing a browser infringing on their patents in the US. But for the others, the patent situation is very relevant.

So it wouldn't matter if the standard just decided to standardize something that Apple claims patents on, if Microsoft and Mozilla then couldn't implement the standard due to those patents....

DarkShikari• 15 years ago

I don't understand why the W3C even allows this.

When companies submit any documentation whatsoever as part of, say, an the ITU H.264 standardization process, they are required to sign off on a form that states whether they have patent claims on that documentation. If they do, they declare that they are willing to license it under the terms required for that specification -- no surprises.

This doesn't eliminate the possibility of later surprise patents, but it does mean that it's unlikely any can come from anyone involved, because to even be involved in the process, you have to declare legally that this won't happen.

Why does the W3C not do this? If a W3C standard requires that all patents involved be licensed in a particular royalty-free manner, shouldn't even proposing an idea to the W3C require a declaration that one has no patents on said idea, or that will license ones' patent in such a manner?

mbrubeck10• 15 years ago

The W3C has similar requirements. Apple worked around them by never proposing touch events as a standard in the W3C [1]. The standardization effort was led by other W3C members without Apple's participation.

[1]: Also, although Safari lead David Hyatt hinted way back in January 2007 that he would eventually bring touch events to the WHAT-WG , it never actually happened: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-Jan...

P.S. Greetings from a fellow Mudder! Thanks for ffmpeg! :)

lincolnwebs• 15 years ago

While I don't condone it, it's easy to understand Apple's reasoning.

The longer they can delay the standardization of touch events, the easier it is for them to maintain dominance in the tablet and phone markets with their UX design & proprietary apps marketplace ("those web apps are harder to use because they don't behave with touch right!").

Of course they don't want a standard yet. They're the ones doing it best and reaping the rewards.

namank• 15 years ago

This is interesting.

To me, it seem, that Apple knows its a lost battle before it even begins. So the only purpose here is to delay the open standard for as long as possible.

Why do I think this? Because they filed it at the last minute...not once, not twice, but three time!

Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

Related Stories