A future without the Web

Okay, you probably think I've overstretched myself this time. There is no possible way that the introduction of software patents could hamper the development and growth of the Internet, right? This is the same internet that has revolutionised commerce, publishing and is impervious to even nuclear attack - and I'm saying that patents could paralyse it? Yeah, right...

Well.. yeah, right. This is so close to the truth that it's almost not funny. The benefits that the world-wide web has brought to us are uncountable, and I don't think that I need to explain them to you. So, let's get on with the show.

If you don't know how the web works, let me take a few seconds of your time to explain. Web pages are written in a language called HTML, and your browser fetches them from the webserver with a communication protocol called HTTP - sounds similar, huh? The "HT" in both cases refers to "Hyper Text". If a web page contains images, they might be in GIF or perhaps PNG format. That's the sum of all the jargon you need to know for this.

The first attack of software patents against the internet has already been seen. You know I mention those GIF images? Well, you actually required (for a time) a patent to write software that produced those. Rather than talk you through everything that happened, all I will say is that this was a great example of a "submarine patent": a company patented a software algorithm required to use these files, and then didn't tell anyone about it until the file format became really popular, at which point they then began to start charging people. You can find out much more at the Burn All GIFs website, which encourages people to switch from the patented format. Thankfully, this doesn't seem to be as much of a problem as it could have been, since the patents are due for expiry very soon. But, if that patent had been enforced completely, it would have resulted in a vastly less graphical web, at least until someone invented a different format that was not covered by the patent.

Another small attack came when BT decided that their submarine patent would also rise to the surface - they had supposedly patented hyperlinks. Any page which linked to another page (which is the whole point of the web!) was, therefore, infringing a patented technology. You can find out more about this at the FFII page about the topic. Again, this attack hasn't come to much: BT have had a huge amount of trouble enforcing the patent against HTML hyperlinks, because the system they patented was not similar enough. However, that's really more an accident of time - it would have been possible that when their system was originally invented that it could have been more similar to the system that became the web, and had that happened, the hyperlink - the fundamental building block of the web - would have become a patented technology. This would have destroyed the web completely.

We're now facing much sterner attacks. Big companies have realised that if they are able to enforce a patent on a key web technology, then it's payola. A great example of the patent industry trying to get its foot in the door has been seen at the W3C organisation. The W3C helps set the standards that make up the web: they defined HTML 4.0, which is the current version of the language used to create web sites, and they are creating the future standards for HTML. Further to that, they also define image formats (such as PNG, SVG..), ways of translating data (such as XML) into other types of data (like webpages), and all sorts of other technologies. All these standards are absolutely key to the way that the web - and other systems - work, and even some big companies are realising this.

The Apple computer corporation was so aghast at the thought of W3C standards requiring patent licensing that they issued a statement to that effect. You can read that statement on this page. To quote a small section:

"While the current draft patent policy does state a preference for royalty-free standards, the ready availability of a RAND option presents too easy an alternative for owners of intellectual property who may seek to use the standardization process to control access to fundamental Web standards."

RAND means "reasonable and non-discriminatory"; this is patent industry speak for "we won't use this patent to block people's entry to market, we will only charge large amounts of money". Apple state that royalty-free licensing is a must; essentially, this means that if you have a patent, you cannot use it to tax this standard. This isn't the perfect solution - the patent does still exist, and can be applied to software doing exactly the same thing but in the context of something that is not a W3C standard, which is a very bizarre situation. But they are saying one thing, loud and clear: software patents cannot be allowed to have an effect on the development of web standards. Apple understands the damage that this would cause.

I have shown you that companies have already attempted to patent the way the web works: the image formats that it uses, the way hyperlinks work, they have even attempted to get the body that sets the web standards to allow patents on those standards so that big business can effectively tax the internet. It has not happened yet, but the will is there and without opposition it is only a matter of time. Software patents put the future of the web into doubt, there can be no other conclusion.