Innovation used to be what the World Wide Web was all about. Tim Berners-Lee set out with a goal: to provide an arena where information and ideas could be easily exchanged and worked on without the corporate world looking over your shoulder.

From this model emerged an organisation called the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Now it seems the W3C has turned its back on the origins of the web.

The problems began in October 1999 when the W3C outlined the goals behind its Patent Policy Working Group: "To adopt a more comprehensive policy and process for addressing the relationship between the open technical recommendations developed by W3C and patent rights held by W3C members and others."

Unfortunately for developers, the "patent rights" refer to corporations looking to cash in on their technology. In this case, it is a who's who of technology giants including Apple, AT&T, Fujitsu, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Philips, Sun and the W3C itself.

"What I don't understand is why these huge companies are involved in the W3C proposals so much," said Judy Jerome, IT information analyst at Bloor Research.

One letter of objection to the W3C stated that: "A patent-encumbered web threatens the very freedom of intellectual debate, allowing only large companies and big media houses to present information in certain ways."

The RAND debate

At the centre of the debate lies the new model for reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing terms. As the W3C put it: "RAND means that someone may or may not need to pay a fee, and that it is at the discretion of the licence holder."

This means that companies have already begun to use RAND in their day-to-day operations, evident in a recently upgraded standard for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG 1.0).

In the standard, Apple, IBM, Eastman Kodak and Quark have been willing to supply their intellectual property, but only under the terms of RAND licensing. In short, all companies have reserved the right to start charging royalties should the need arise.

When asked about how this would affect the future of W3C, Jerome was forthright: "This is a very interesting development. Basically the W3C is going to put itself out of business.

"There have already been cases where less able code has been used as a basis for standards because the original - and better - technology was patented," she said.

"If, for example, a chip maker was to develop a new architecture for a chip that supports wireless technology, something for which there is no standard, future developers would have to pay royalties. They could make millions."

The whole situation is ominous for the development of free or open source software. Standards that may require licensing fees are, by their very nature, completely incompatible with free software development.

"That was the argument made by the Linux Consortium when the issue of software patents was raised," said Ari Laakkonen, associate solicitor at Linklaters. "It will be a struggle and the process will involve many more lawyers."

He agreed this could play into the hands of large companies, which have the time, money and expertise to carry out such litigation.

But he was adamant that the proposed legislation could benefit large and small companies: "For a patent holder, the panacea is to own a patent for some technology covered by a standard. Small companies can benefit in the same way," he said.

Geographical problems

In another letter of objection to the W3C, the geographical problems such a proposal will create were outlined well.

"Patents are localised to national boundaries. The web is global in scale. How do you enforce a patent in a country where patents aren't recognised?

"If a non-commercial effort is adversely affected by the patent infringement discussed above, what should you do? If you download that software and use it in a patent observing country, are you in violation of the patent? For the W3C members, this is a commercial windfall."

W3C statement

The W3C has issued a statement, which includes: "W3C recognises that a royalty-free environment was essential to the growth of the web, and the contributions of the open source developer community have been critical to its success.

"W3C also recognises that software patents exist (and patent issues have become more prevalent with the growth of the web), and ignoring them will do more harm than good.

"W3C is working hard to reach consensus in an area where there is an obvious tension, and to strike a balance among diverse interests."

In this case, it appears to be the interests of large companies. If passed, the legislation will come into force in February 2002. The deadline for public response is 11 October.

RAND AND RF - CENTRAL TO THE W3C OBJECTIVE. WHAT DO THEY REALLY MEAN?Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) and royalty-free (RF) licence terms are at the centre of the debate over the W3C objective. But what exactly does each term mean?

A RAND licence:

An RF licence shall have the same characteristics as a RAND licence, except an RF licence: