A Blog From Behind the Trenches

A couple of years ago, I reported on how Apple was using patents to block a W3C specification.

The end-result was that the patent didn't seem to be relevant to the specification at all, and one or both of them were even rejected by the patent office. That Apple would use invalid or irrelevant patents or patent applications to block or delay an open standard seems odd, but if you look at their general behavior during the whole thing, it is easy to conclude that the intent was indeed malicious.

And while I didn't report on this (I suppose I should have), Apple actually used two patent applications to prevent a W3C standard from proceeding in 2010. This patent claim, too, seemed to have been filed at the very last minute, much like the patent claim in 2009.

As I mentioned, the submissions in question were still only patent applications, and Apple were basically saying that the claim covers not only the patent applications as they were then, but also "any claims that issue in any continuations, divisionals, continuations-in-part, reissues or other counterparts" in future versions of the applications.

Not exactly helpful.

And guess what, Apple is at it again. Another year, another attempt by Apple to block open standards using patents.

This time they have four claims - three patents and one patent application - that threaten to block the W3C Touch Events Specification. They filed their patent claims a little over a month before the time limit expired (the claim was filed on November 11, and the time limit is December 26, 2011).

The odd thing is that Apple chose not to join the working group that handles touch events. If they had joined, they would have been forced to file the patent claims far sooner. So now we know why they didn't join. What we don't know is why Apple insists on waiting almost until the last minute before filing its patent claims.

I'm starting to see a pattern here:

• 2009: Apple discloses one at the last minute. Patent Advisory Group created. Patent was found not to be relevant.
• 2010: Apple discloses two patent applications at the last minute. PAG created. One patent found to not apply. The other deemed not relevant.
• 2011: Apple discloses three patents and one application at the last minute. PAG likely to be created. Unclear what the result will be.

What makes this matter even worse is that this doesn't just affect these specific standards. The Patent Advisory Groups could in fact slow down the development of other standards by pulling people from other projects in order to investigate these claims. The investigation can take several months, and will take time, resources and money to complete.

That's time, resources and money that could have been spent on improving various other work-in-progress standards.

Opera Software is getting very friendly with mobile operators, and I think it's a good approach by these companies to use compression to be able to handle the increased traffic on their networks. Several of the world's biggest operators are now using Opera's compression technology as a cheap and efficient way to expand their capabilities.

What I don't like is the way some operators seem to be using misleading arguments, trying to force other companies to pay their bills for them.

Read more...

Background: Apple's new "HTML5 Showcase" is raising a few questions from Opera users (and others), so I thought I'd address them here.

Apple claim to promote HTML5 and an open Web, but the page uses browser sniffing to block other browsers, vendor prefixes for the CSS3 stuff they are using (even if other browsers support border-radius it won't work because it's coded using -webkit-border-radius), and the patent-encumbered H.264 for video.

In fact, it seems that the only things that are HTML5 on that page are HTML5 audio and video.

Read more...

Time to fork WebKit

My wish for this year is for Google to fork WebKit. They should take the WebKit code, give it a new name, and create a separate browser engine based on that. This, I argue, would be in both Google's own interest, and in the interest of the open Web.

Read more...

BBC's Click Online is airing a piece on the browser ballot, which includes a statements from the execs of the various browser vendors, and video comments from users.

I think the best part of the video is the girl at 04:05, who is supposed to explain why she uses Safari:

I use Safari to browse the internet because I keep forgetting to download Opera, and Safari is OK... most of the time

Priceless

AT&T would be wise to use whatever power it has over Apple to convince them to allow Opera Mini onto the iPhone App Store.

Not only will AT&T's customers have a much better experience when they don't have a perfect WiFi or 3G connection, but Opera Mini also compresses data up to 90%. This means that AT&T could get much more out of its current network infrastructure.

If 10% of their iPhone customers switched to Opera, they would be able to service quite a few new customers without upgrading their network capacity.

It should be noted that AT&T is already working with Opera on other projects, so they already know what Opera Mini is capable of.

If you read the report from the W3C Patent Advisory Group (PAG) regarding Apple's patent claim against the Widgets 1.0 specification, you will not only see the reasons why the PAG does not think the patent is relevant, but it also reveals some worrying things about the way Apple handled the whole thing.

Read more...

In an article triggered by RIM's acquisition of Torch Mobile and their WebKit based browser, CNET's Matt Asay argues that Apple has too much control over WebKit. Other companies relying on WebKit for their browser will basically be slaves to Apple's release cycles, and Apple will always control where WebKit is heading and optimize it for their own products.

So what is his solution to this suggested problem?

it would be nice to see a truly open-source project--open in source, and open to outside involvement--standardize the mobile browsing experience, too

In other words, he is echoing Symbian's call for a standardized browser for all mobile phones.

Read more...

There's some potentially bad news from the open standards front.

Early last month, it became clear that Apple might be causing trouble for the W3C Widgets specification. They are unwilling to make patent 5,764,992 (W3C information), which covers automatic software upates, royalty-free if the Widgets Update specification is found to use anything covered by the patent. This basically means a lot of additional work for the Working Group at the W3C, and might slow down the process of finalizing the widgets specification.

So as a response to this situation the W3C has put together a Patent Advisory Group, meaning that several companies are forced to spend a lot of time and money trying to figure out if Apple's patent claim actually applies, and if it does, what to do about it.

With the recent rumours of Apple getting all lawsuit-happy over patents, what are they up to exactly?

For Opera's position on software patents, take a look at Opera's vision statement.