Apple's Statement on W3C Patent Policy (2002) | Hacker News Reader

Apple's Statement on W3C Patent Policy (2002)

apple.com

32 pointsZeroGravitas15 comments

The link I submitted is dead. This eloquent defense of a patent-royalty free web disappeared in the last couple of weeks after being posted for about 8 years. There is a Cache of the text here:

http://xml.coverpages.org/AppleComputerPatentStatement.html

It now gives me great pleasure to introduce [...]

iPhoto and iMovie revolutionized the ability of consumers to organize, edit and display [note: the missing word, create] digital photography and video. Putting capabilities that once cost thousands of dollars into the hands of every Mac user. Steve is also widely recognized for his ability to create an innovative environment inside AAPL. As well as an external company image, that is equally innovative. Just think about AAPL's marketing campaigns over the past three decades. A promotional flier in 1976 showed Isaac Newton, sitting under a tree, just as an apple was falling by, with the catchy exhortation, to byte, B. Y. T. E., into an apple. There was an iconic Superbowl commercial ...techie humor. An iconic Superbowl commercial, telling us, that the Macintosh was on the horizon, and ensuring us, that we would see why 1984 wouldn't be like 1984. -- Hennessy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_%28television_commercial%2...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

It would have been awesome if you had put the effort to state your position instead of slapping two links to Wikipedia and leaving us to infer what you're trying to say.

If you are implying that Apple removed the page because they are ashamed of it, I'd say bubkes. I don't think Apple's position has changed in any way. In fact in last week's Steve-rant, Jobs reiterated basically the same thing.

"iPhoto and iMovie revolutionized the ability of consumers to organize, edit and display [note: the missing word, create] digital photography and video."

Have you used either of those programs? They aren't some passive entertainment software--they exist so you can take your camera (video or still) around, capture something, and plug it into your Mac later for editing. Apple's Mac software, and the Mac itself, were always targeted towards people's creativity, and there's no indication that's changed. What has changed is Apple has discovered they can sell well-designed products to people who aren't interested in creativity, too.

I tend to agree with this piece:

http://www.osnews.com/print/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Vid...

Mandating strong legally enforced controls over image compression algorithms do result in a READ-ONLY CULTURE:

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

The above should answer your questions in detail.

OK, I don't see how any of that is relevant to your claim that iPhoto and iMovie are for passive consumption of entertainment (if that's indeed what you're saying, as you couldn't be bothered to actually tell us.)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080430070931/http://www.apple.c...

Note well that H.264 has nothing to do with the W3C patent policy, as it has never been suggested for inclusion in any W3C spec. If you're looking for evidence of Apple's current stance toward the W3C patent policy, look at Canvas, which is part of the HTML5 spec and which Apple has disclosed their patents[1] according to the same W3C policy[2] they supported in this statement.

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good insinuation.

[1]:http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/40318/status#current-discl... [2]:http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-W3C...

Has Apple actually supported any amendments to W3C standards that require patent royalties to be paid? If they haven't asked that the video standard be set specifically to h.264, then I don't see the problem.

I am reminded of why I used to love that company. What happened to it?

Success, most probably.

At that time, Apple was struggling to be relevant and needed a level playing field. Now it's the undisputed leader in what seems to be two very important segments for future growth.

Now, all it doesn't need is a level playing field.

Power corrupts.

Avoiding possible confusion as to what this statement refers to is plenty reason for removal. In itself, that they took it down shouldn't imply Apple repudiates the statement, is ashamed of it, or wants to cover it up.

> Avoiding possible confusion

I believe the word you are looking for is 'inconsistency'.

Hiding contradictory past policy eh? Now to wait for the inevitable explanation of how changing market forces have made closed, patented software more viable today than it was in 2002...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com