[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> If I personally had to pay a toll for every site I visited,
> I agree, it would not have taken off. But I don't do that
> for listening to the radio. Someone does. The problem here
> is that a business model for "free content" wasn't required
> to start the web. It may be required for some content markets.
The TV (and radio) business is much like the chicken business:
the chickens only *think* it's all being done for their benefit.
In fact, the real customers are hidden, and the chickens only get
whatever will barely keep them alive (watching/listening).
> RAND says, "these are the terms under which you may
> use my property in your standard".
Actually, it doesn't: that would be something between RAND and
RF. RAND only says that the terms for you_1 will be the same as
the terms for you_2, but as for reasonableness, what is that?
Why, whatever the patent owner thinks reasonable, viz. whatever
the traffic will bear. Classic rent seeking.
> The real problem is "unreasonable" patents
As long as the customers of the patent offices are the
filers of patents, the number of "unreasonable" patents can only
grow. They have forgotten that they are supposed to be acting
in the public interest, being caught by the Invisible Foot
(excellent article, BTW, what parts of it I understood).
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
