[MPEG-OTSPEC] Patent policy and process

[fantasai]

Some comments on W3C process...

On 8/18/20 7:59 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> 
> I’d like to have a forum that produces a range of documents, some very formal, 
> such as a standard on OpenType text shaping (as being defined in the scope 
> discussion), some less formal, such as orthography documentation or guides on 
> developing fonts for specific scripts. There need to be different processes 
> for different kinds of documents.
> 
> While I agree in principle, I am not sure this can be easily implemented in 
> practice. Almost every industry standards organization has significant 
> processes and policies in place, some of them are more rigid than others but 
> none of them (as far as I am aware) have processes in place that would allow 
> such a broad range of output documents be published.
W3C has two tracks for formal documents:
   * Recommendation track for technical specifications
       -> backed by the Patent Policy, has various formal requirements
   * Note track for informative documents
       -> updated at the will of the WG, no patent coverage
We're also looking into adding a third track for registries.

Additionally, each WG has its own web space, and a number of them (such as the 
Internationalization WG) use that space to publish less formal documentation.
   https://www.w3.org/International/articlelist

> Many engineers / developers may not care about official document status for as 
> long as the info they need is readily available, but the industry (OEM) and 
> their lawyers do care, a lot! OpenType 1.4 had seen limited adoption by major 
> consumer electronic device makers, but as soon as the 1^st edition of ISO OFF 
> standard was published (the same exact text, with the only difference that 
> OpenType references were replaced by OFF) – the adoption skyrocketed through 
> the roof, and virtually all consumer devices became font-friendly. No 
> technical differences whatsoever, the only reason is that ISO publication 
> meant this spec is here to stay and there are proper IPR policies in place … 
> voila, the world has changed! There are now many industry standards that 
> mandate OFF support for conformance.

I'll note that W3C has just approved an update to its Patent Policy this week, 
which applies patent protections to Candidate Recommendations as well as 
Recommendations. This allows early implementations to be protected.

(For those unfamiliar with W3C process,
   Working Draft -> design phase
   Candidate Recommendation -> testing phase, invites implementations
   Recommendation -> stable phase, requires proof of implementations )

> The IP policies are there to primarily protect the implementers, not the 
> contributors. In fact, they are sometimes the biggest stumbling block that 
> makes participating company lawyers very concerned. This is why creating an IP 
> policy and getting it approved by membership is such a difficult process. 

As someone who just spent the last year working with various company lawyers 
on the recent W3C Process and Patent Policy updates, I will concur that 
developing a new patent policy is not something you want to be doing. :)

~fantasai