[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>,"Steven R. Newcomb" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:47:36 -0500
Let me try this in very plain language:
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:email@example.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Mine is the objectivist position with respect
>> to that politic.
>I still have no idea what you are saying.
You are gelding the W3C; for the non-doctors,
cutting off their nuts. With a RAND policy,
the patent owner has to publicly refuse to
offer reasonable and non-discrimanatory terms.
With only RF, they simply refuse and will not
be publicly held up in a bad light as they are
the IP owner. With RAND, you have a chance
to get reasonable and non-discrimanatory terms
in those cases in which use of the IP is
highly desirable. Without it, you are completely
and wholely subject to the owner's good will.
You have in effect, given the WWW to the BigCos.
Business: "if it is legal, we'll do it."
Public Interest: "if it is legal, we'll do it."
No difference. If you want there to be a difference,
you must ensure both points of view can be accomodated.
In the majority of cases, RF is to be preferred.
This is unquestionably the case. There can be
cases in which this is not true and in these
cases, very high value technology, the chance
to get RAND by formal policy is preferred. If
you remove that option by requiring RF-only,
you weaken the authority you say you respect.
Preserve control of your options and then know
when to exercise them.