|
|
|
|
|
IBM, Microsoft patents pose dangers
By David Berlind
April 12, 2002
|
|
|
|
IBM and Microsoft have been quietly busy behind the scenes for the last two years building a toll booth that could position the two companies to collect royalties on most if not all Internet traffic.
While the technologies that form the foundation of that toll booth have yet to be officially recognized as standards by an independent standards body, the collective strength of IBM and Microsoft could be enough to render Internet standards consortia powerless to stop them.
 
The potential for the two giants to erect a toll booth is tied to the likelihood that Web services protocols such as SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI--and the related ones to which the two companies hold patents or other intellectual property rights--will one day be as important as the standard protocols (such as TCP/IP and HTTP) on which the Internet is based today. Web services and the protocols that make them possible are destined to play a major role in most if not all electronic commerce as well as other Internet traffic.
If the protocols do become standards, either by virtue of an independent standards organization's imprimatur or by attaining a de facto status, IBM and Microsoft--or any other company that maintains the intellectual property rights to them--could legally impose royalties on that traffic. In fact, any protocols that become a part of the core Internet infrastructure without having been made available on a royalty-free basis could guarantee the owners of the intellectual property the right to place a tax on the Internet traffic that depends on those protocols.
That tax could show up in both direct and indirect ways. Web sites that use non-royalty-free protocols--to which IBM and Microsoft claim intellectual property rights--could be subject to per-use or annual licensing fees. Competitors to IBM and Microsoft could be forced to pay royalties before they are allowed to sell tools and products for developing those sites. These vendors, in turn, might decide to pass on their additional costs to customers, or they might decide not to develop and sell their products--thereby reducing the number of competing alternatives. In the least likely scenario, users of Internet applications that depend on the protocols could be asked to pay based on metered use of those protocols. Currently, no plausible or globally scalable mechanism exists for doing so.
No standard policy
For the most part, standards-setting for the Internet and Web has taken place within the working groups of two organizations: the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Until recently, neither organization had maintained a policy requiring vendors to make the intellectual property (IP) they contribute to the standards setting process available on a royalty-free basis. According to W3C Patent Policy Working Group Chairman Danny Weitzner, "Despite the lack of a policy, there has always been an understanding amongst the various contributors that the Internet and the Web wouldn't be possible or scalable unless their contributions were available to everyone on a royalty-free basis."
But that gentleman's agreement has been tested several times over the years and it could end up being tested again by Microsoft and IBM. According to documents on the W3C's Web site, IBM and Microsoft not only own intellectual property within specific Web services protocols, but also have no intentions of relinquishing their IP rights to those protocols should they become standards. The documents indicate that the two companies are currently maintaining their rights to pursue a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing framework as opposed to a royalty-free-based framework. The RAND framework is widely acknowledged as the one that keeps a vendor's options open in terms of being able to charge content developers and Internet users a royalty for usage of relevant intellectual property.
 |
|
|
|
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Marvin Goembel
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Ron Uncapher
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Bryan Gray
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Larry LeGore
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Frank Lohmeyer
Kudos Jason Epperson
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover david leed
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Ron Johnson
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Dennis Bianco
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Paul Ricca
I wouldn't bet in IBM Gregg Harcus
Re: I wouldn't bet in IBM P Stroud
Re: I wouldn't bet in IBM Gregg Harcus
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Phil Lo Galbo
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Gregg Harcus
You had better have cold hard facts..... Debbi Card
Take it to who? Mark Hotchkiss
Re: You had better have cold hard facts..... Tom Hite
Re: You had better have cold hard facts..... Michael Eiden
Re: You had better have cold hard facts..... daryl datz
Re: Joe Viola
Re: Chris Maxwell
Re: Paxton King
Re: Alastair Nicol
Oh please, a sense of proportion here! Robert Lallier
Re: Oh please, a sense of proportion here! Richard Brown
Re: Oh please, a sense of proportion here! Dan O
Re: Oh please, a sense of proportion here! Thomas McMullan
Re: Oh please, a sense of proportion here! Gregg Harcus
Re: Pete Grondin
Re: Todd Siskin
Re: Paul Mulcahy
Would spark another open source off shoot durandal 00
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Jeff Beard
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Joseph Nicholson
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Internet User
This is a crock! Lynn Withrow
Re: This is a crock! Joyce Perkins
Hmmm, Didn't Rambus and Intel Try This? Donald W. Shantz
Re: Hmmm, Didn't Rambus and Intel Try This? Leon Letto
Other countries will never allow this JON BAIN
Absurd Roy Tyrell
Nice Reporting! Gary Edwards
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Michael Nehring
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Chris Maxwell
IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover David Bright
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover A Grant
Hidden Costs Glen Tippetts
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Tony Burcham
Re: IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover Curtis , The Man
|
|
Comments? Questions? Tell us what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
