or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Web consortium at odds with Apple over widget patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Web consortium at odds with Apple over widget patents

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
The World Wide Web Consortium has issued a public call for prior art on Apple patents related to widgets that the company has refused to submit to a license-free standard.

Because the W3C requires its standards to be "royalty-free," it has hit a road block in its efforts to create a Widget Access Request Policy specification for web apps, as noted by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Apple is asserting two patents that it believes apply to the specification, choosing not to submit them to the group under a royalty-free licensing policy.

Though Apple is a member of the W3C, which is made up of hundreds of major technology companies, it still maintains the right to choose whether its intellectual property is included in a standard. The impasse began in 2009 when Apple first opposed the Widgets standard with a patent for automatic software updates.

With the Cupertino, Calif., company unwilling to budge, the W3C turned to its members for help on Friday by putting a call out for prior art that could invalidate the patents. The group referenced patent application 11/432,295, which describes a widget security system.

In particular, the W3C is looking for "information about access control systems available before October 2005 and content distribution systems before April 2006 that offer a viable solution to the use of access requests policy in Widgets."

"The W3C hopes to do away with Apple's relevant patent and patent application," Mueller wrote. "It's an unpleasant situation for the W3C to have to confront one of its members, especially such a large and powerful one, but sometimes this can't be avoided."

Apple's actions have mystified fellow members of the W3C. "This basically means a lot of additional work for the Working Group at the W3C, and might slow down the process of finalizing the widgets specification," browser developer Opera wrote in 2009. "What are they up to exactly?"

Given the fact that Apple is engaged in numerous lawsuits with competitors, the company may be reluctant to give up patents it believes could provide leverage or defense.

Members of the consortium are also in disagreement over Google's proposal of the WebM video standard for acceptance as a W3C standard. Apple and others oppose the move and take issue with the search giant's claim.
post #2 of 41
apple will do what needs to be done . the real hot widgets will stay with apple and the all the others will go back into the large pile of widgets that any member can use .


i may be wrong here ..

9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #3 of 41
It is just a method for automated updates. Just go ahead with a manual one if they can't find any predecessors to Apple patents.
post #4 of 41
It's treading thin ground, after all look at what is supposedly happening to Samsung and look at what happened to Google when they crossed Apple.
post #5 of 41
Now, with "first to file" these issues will all go away. Prior art will be meaningless.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 41
The W3C was floundering with XHTML2.0 and it's endless derivative standards driving everyone off a cliff [Does one need like 50 different XML specs for the crap they kept pushing out and forcing on the community?] and had no interest in HTML 5 until it became clear they would become marginalized.

Suddenly, they want to throw their brand behind it, but to act as if they have any leverage they are pushing this widget issue.

Get over it, W3C.

Without the big corporations writing the Browsers the W3C would have long ago ceased to exist.
post #7 of 41
And that's why we can't have nice things...

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The W3C was floundering with XHTML2.0 and it's endless derivative standards driving everyone off a cliff [Does one need like 50 different XML specs for the crap they kept pushing out and forcing on the community?] and had no interest in HTML 5 until it became clear they would become marginalized.

Suddenly, they want to throw their brand behind it, but to act as if they have any leverage they are pushing this widget issue.

Get over it, W3C.

Without the big corporations writing the Browsers the W3C would have long ago ceased to exist.

Like Netscape maybe..Oh wait it was destriyed by a small charity group called Micro-Sowft.
Btw, what kernel does MacOS use?
Oh yeah ,I forgot it runs on "magic"
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

Like Netscape maybe..Oh wait it was destriyed by a small charity group called Micro-Sowft.
Btw, what kernel does MacOS use?
Oh yeah ,I forgot it runs on "magic"

Last I checked Netscape, Microsoft, Apple et all were reasonably big companies. :P

Also, XNU. But, how's that relevant at all?
post #10 of 41
Because W3C decides the standard that's why.
Also, without W3C enforcing html5 people on Mac would be stuck with blank screens without flash.
Apple cannot bake the cake and eat it too.
Btw, nice that my comment let u join AI.Le's just hpe you are not an established member trolling out here
post #11 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

Because W3C decides the standard that's why.
Also, without W3C enforcing html5 people on Mac would be stuck with blank screens without flash.
Apple cannot bake the cake and eat it too.
Btw, nice that my comment let u join AI.Le's just hpe you are not an established member trolling out here

Honestly, most of why they do is ratify the implementations, not make them from scratch (usually). Also, I am actually new, but I still don't understand how kernels are at all related to W3C. Also, they only manage web standards (as the name implies).
post #12 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post

Because W3C decides the standard that's why.
Also, without W3C enforcing html5 people on Mac would be stuck with blank screens without flash.
Apple cannot bake the cake and eat it too.
Btw, nice that my comment let u join AI.Le's just hpe you are not an established member trolling out here

Flash works on my Mac, if I want to see crappy ads and pointless eyecandy I just relax my blocking software.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #13 of 41
There seems to be a whole lot of talk about consortiums lately. First, there were all those consortiums involved in the Nortel patent auction and now we have a web consortium which is going after Apple's widgets.

I happened to walk by a consortium late last night. There were these three hookers standing together, talking on a corner, and you can bet that if a younger, newer, more attractive prostitute were to encroach upon their turf, then the consortium of the three whores would have driven the newcomer out of their block.
post #14 of 41
Universal translation: Apple wants to see how much cash they can wring out of this before they decide to be part of the gang. Typical Apple move.
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The W3C was floundering with XHTML2.0 and it's endless derivative standards driving everyone off a cliff [Does one need like 50 different XML specs for the crap they kept pushing out and forcing on the community?] and had no interest in HTML 5 until it became clear they would become marginalized.

Suddenly, they want to throw their brand behind it, but to act as if they have any leverage they are pushing this widget issue.

Get over it, W3C.

Without the big corporations writing the Browsers the W3C would have long ago ceased to exist.

What "brand" does the W3C have? The brand that says if you code to certain standards you can expect your website to function correctly in any modern browser? Yes, that's certainly a crappy brand concept to be pushing. Let's just go back to having IE-specific web extensions and Netscape specific crap, and now we can throw in some Firefox, Chrome and Safari-only tags and attributes just to keep it interesting. Web developers can try to code to 4 different browsers or (more likely) say screw it for 3 of them and code for only one of them.

Without standards the Web would be a fractured, steaming pile of crap. Or would you prefer to go back to a time when websites looked radically different depending on what browser you were using? Do you want to go back to a bunch of sites that only run under Internet Explorer (especially since there is no Mac version of IE)?

God, how I absolutely loathe the idiotic fanboy double standard. People here whine about Microsoft or Google doing their best to delay adoption of HTML5 standards then defend Apple when they do the same thing. Make up your minds. If it's bad for Google, Microsoft, [insert Apple competitor here] to do something, it's bad for Apple to do the same thing.
post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Universal translation: Apple wants to see how much cash they can wring out of this before they decide to be part of the gang. Typical Apple move.

I don't follow. What "gang" does Apple want to be part of, and why?

Also, would you rather that they did business the other way around?
post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbydek View Post

It's treading thin ground, after all look at what is supposedly happening to Samsung and look at what happened to Google when they crossed Apple.

The difference here is that this won't possibly happen for any reason ever.

You don't screw with the W3C. Just like you don't screw with the IEEE or any of the other bodies that set the standards inside your computer.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #18 of 41
Apple is holding these patents close to their chest because they don't want to damage their case in an ongoing lawsuit with some other company.

Apple has a vested interest in HTML5 and wants an open web. But if they think this will hurt them financially they will do whatever necessary to halt it. They may succeed; they may fail. Either way I doubt anyone will care much about this before long.

Also, to anyone bashing the W3C: Read up before posting, the web consortium is pushing an open web for some very sensible reasons. The only reason HTML was successful in the first place was that it was free. There were other systems available but they were proprietary and locked into particular ISPs. Keeping HTML free is the way to prevent it sinking back into the proprietary mess it was in when IE was the only browser.

And none of us want that, do we?
post #19 of 41
Patents impede progress but reward innovation. It is a double edged sword.
post #20 of 41
Could someone please explain what the widgets on Mac Dashboard have to do with the World Wide Web? I realize some widgets access the internet for data, but the widget itself resides on my Mac within the proprietary Apple OS. So why do these guys care about my Mac's OS? I could see where they would if this was a Chrome laptop which lives on the web, by why my Mac? Apple is not selling or distributing these widgets outside their own ecosystem, so what's the deal?

The article's author could have done a better job of explaining the "why" of this as opposed to the "what."
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Could someone please explain ....

The article's author could have done a better job of explaining the "why" of this as opposed to the "what."

Good luck finding it here, or anywhere on the inter-web for that matter nowadays. It is all about being first and subsequently, click counts.

To give him some slack though, this is not an in depth article or a soecial feature but yeah...
post #22 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

There seems to be a whole lot of talk about consortiums lately. First, there were all those consortiums involved in the Nortel patent auction and now we have a web consortium which is going after Apple's widgets.

I happened to walk by a consortium late last night. There were these three hookers standing together, talking on a corner, and you can bet that if a younger, newer, more attractive prostitute were to encroach upon their turf, then the consortium of the three whores would have driven the newcomer out of their block.

It is clear, old man, that you have not an iota of idea what W3C really is.
This is probably the first time you are hearing it.
If it was not for w#c we would not have internet as we know it.
funny then ,you write your stupid rant on a browser which had been made a standard by W3C .(HTMLx)
by a website which uses php,on a internet which has been madepossibleonly because of W3C.


PS:did you have any luck with the hookers?
Ya ,I thought so.Maybe they thought your stupidity was more lethal and infectious than the germs they were carrying.
post #23 of 41
So, W3C enforcing open and royalty free standards is only good when the company involved is not the one we love.

I would like to read the comments if the patentes were held by MS, Nokia, Samsung or Google
post #24 of 41
I don;t care apple is on the end of this stick.. I think this is probably the best anti-troll (not saying apple is a troll by any means) strategy. Bring about an all out attack on their patent portfolios invalidating all that you can while making them succumb to legal costs for once.
post #25 of 41
*Acts surprised*

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #26 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Now, with "first to file" these issues will all go away. Prior art will be meaningless.

Where first-to-file becomes relevant in comparison to first-to-invent, is situations in which two different people both attempt to obtain patents on the same technology, and neither of them had previously made any public declarations about the technology before filing: In that case, under the first-to-file system, the first person to file for the patent wins, and under the first to invent system the two filers have to provide evidence of who invented it first.

But I thought the distinction only really mattered in cases where both inventors kept the invention secret before filing the patent application.

The situation shifts, even in a first-to-file system, if complete details about the invention where already published in a publicly available forum before any prospective patent applicants had managed to file their patent application related to the technology. Hence the W3C's interest in locating prior art.

And the fact of the matter is, sometimes patent examiners fail to catch the fact that the same patent has already been granted, perhaps expressed in slightly different wording, and allow a second patent related to the exact same technology to be granted a second time to a second inventor. It is not positively established that Apple's patents in this case don't necessarily fall into this sort of situation.
post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

So, W3C enforcing open and royalty free standards is only good when the company involved is not the one we love.

I would like to read the comments if the patentes were held by MS, Nokia, Samsung or Google

The W3C process was working exacty as it should be working, then politics broke it. The working group made a call to the members for patents which could be a problem, Apple raised it's hand. At that point the working group is supposed to ask Apple nicely (which happened) if it would like to sign over the patent(s) for everyone else to use, freely, forever. Apple politely declined which is also in accordance with the W3C rules.

What is supposed to happen after that is for the working group to work together, and with Apple, to find a way to define the standard in such a way that Apple agrees the standard implementations won't infringe on the previously identified patents. Then we would all have that royalty free standard we are looking for, and W3C gets the guarantee from Apple (or any other company that raises it's hand at the call) that there won't be any chance whatsoever of an IP suit from them down the line.

The problem is the anti-software patent reactionaries are making a big deal out of this and trying to make Apple out to be obstructionist, when Apple is playing completely by the rules. These are the rules that have allowed the web to be royalty free, and have worked well for a couple dozen years now. No company is required to give up its IP just because a couple working group members decide it would be easier for the working group if the big company just forked over the goods rather than the working group actually "working" to find the correct answer for the proposed standard.

This is tempest in a teapot stuff, pure opportunistic and reality avoiding politics, nothing more. The call for prior art isn't really going to change anything much, it's just placing W3C in the tight spot of formally being placed against one of its larger members by a working group that hasn't even tried to solve the issue beyond childish whinging and finger pointing.

If this kind of impolite interaction keep up it is more likely to hurt W3C because companies might not participate in working groups, which then gives the companies the right to take the W3C and/or standards users to court. It works far better to sit down and figure out how to do it without infringing on the published patent. For heavens sake the patent is published, and the holder is part of the process to generate the non-infringing implementation. While its not as easy as getting the existing IP granted royalty free, it's not impossible and it is how the process is designed to work. This call for prior art step was designed to attack external threats to the standard by intentional non-participants, turning it on W3C members internally just isn't a smart thing to do.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

The problem is the anti-software patent reactionaries are making a big deal out of this and trying to make Apple out to be obstructionist, when Apple is playing completely by the rules.

It is a little more complicated than that. These particular patents seem to be very broad so it may be difficult to avoid them. Apple is playing by the rules, and so is W3C, they're both playing hardball - still they're both allowed.
post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

A little help?
Could someone please explain what the widgets on Mac Dashboard have to do with the World Wide Web? I realize some widgets access the internet for data, but the widget itself resides on my Mac within the proprietary Apple OS. So why do these guys care about my Mac's OS? I could see where they would if this was a Chrome laptop which lives on the web, by why my Mac? Apple is not selling or distributing these widgets outside their own ecosystem, so what's the deal?

The article's author could have done a better job of explaining the "why" of this as opposed to the "what."

I hadn't heard of this myself so I did a quick 5 minutes research! Someone with prior knowledge in this area may be able to correct of clarify my comments.

The "normal" way to view a HTML page is served up from a server on the Internet.

However it is possible to use HTML5 and related specifications (HTML/CSS/JavaScript) to create offline HTML "apps".

A "widget" in this context is just an offline HTML app with a standardized way of being packaged up an loaded on a device.

It's really not that different from things like Flash or Silverlight, only instead of the app using a proprietary plug-in as the "container", it uses browser.

The patent in question relates to the security model around these "HTML apps".

Apple could simply be defending their patents here, however it's hard not to notice the potential threat deployable offline HTML apps would pose to Apple's own app store.

Here is an Introduction to W3C Widgets.
post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by gari22 View Post

....

Also, to anyone bashing the W3C: Read up before posting, the web consortium is pushing an open web for some very sensible reasons. The only reason HTML was successful in the first place was that it was free. There were other systems available but they were proprietary and locked into particular ISPs. Keeping HTML free is the way to prevent it sinking back into the proprietary mess it was in when IE was the only browser.

And none of us want that, do we?

You do realize that Mosaic and Netscape preceded IE, so it never was "the 'only' browser"?
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacSince1988 View Post

You do realize that Mosaic and Netscape preceded IE, so it never was "the 'only' browser"?

Notice how he put 'only' in quotes. He's referring to the browser wars and how MS IE won from being proprietary and readilly available.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Apple could simply be defending their patents here, however it's hard not to notice the potential threat deployable offline HTML apps would pose to Apple's own app store.

Another point is that given the way that WebOS works, Apple may strongly suspect that they're infringing these patents, and may be hanging onto them till it's clear that WebOS is going to kill itself without outside help.
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Now, with "first to file" these issues will all go away. Prior art will be meaningless.

First to file sucks for game changing innovations, academic research and smaller independent inventors. In short it would degrade a US advantage in comparison to other nations currently saddled with first to file.
post #34 of 41
deleted
post #35 of 41
deleted
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbydek View Post

It's treading thin ground, after all look at what is supposedly happening to Samsung and look at what happened to Google when they crossed Apple.

What happened to Samsung? They'll win just as Nokia did. Is simple Apple widget and icons patents can't compete with real patents on in the inner workings of a cell phone, data transmission, compression, etc.....
post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I hadn't heard of this myself so I did a quick 5 minutes research! Someone with prior knowledge in this area may be able to correct of clarify my comments.

The "normal" way to view a HTML page is served up from a server on the Internet.

However it is possible to use HTML5 and related specifications (HTML/CSS/JavaScript) to create offline HTML "apps".

A "widget" in this context is just an offline HTML app with a standardized way of being packaged up an loaded on a device.

It's really not that different from things like Flash or Silverlight, only instead of the app using a proprietary plug-in as the "container", it uses browser.

The patent in question relates to the security model around these "HTML apps".

Apple could simply be defending their patents here, however it's hard not to notice the potential threat deployable offline HTML apps would pose to Apple's own app store.

Here is an Introduction to W3C Widgets.

Is easy to see why they don't like Flash.
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by holy_steven View Post

What happened to Samsung? They'll win just as Nokia did. Is simple Apple widget and icons patents can't compete with real patents on in the inner workings of a cell phone, data transmission, compression, etc.....

So Apple, which lost to Nokia because of operational patents (your so-called "real patents"), is therefore going to lose to Samsung over TRADE DRESS patents?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by holy_steven View Post

Is easy to see why they don't like Flash.

Apple was pushing HTML 5 apps way before anyone else was. Let's not go off the deep end. I actually think Apple should let the w3c have access to these patents. However, with all the patent suits going on I can see what they wouldn't at this time.
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Patents impede progress but reward innovation. It is a double edged sword.

I'd argue that patents both encourage progress and reward innovation. They encourage progress by forcing other inventors and companies to be creative with work-arounds and alternatives to solid patents. If there is no work around possible (and that is unlikely, there are always different ways of doing things) then licensing comes into play.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Web consortium at odds with Apple over widget patents