Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 3. The main point is that an RF-only policy, no exceptions,
> simply makes the choice easy. Don't submit innovative technology
> because it will be more profitable and easier to use the patent
> laws. So where it might have been "the right thing to do",
> now it is a business loss to do because licensing is
> more profitable than paying out to create specifications for
> competitors to build to.
This is the fundamental error. Certain W3C member representatives are
prone to saying "RF is fundamentally against our Business model! We
made $big-number last year on our patent portfolio!" These idiots fail
to ask themselves how much they made last year because the Web exists
and has become a superb application vehicle in some large part on the
basis of free software.
The notion that you can make money building and delivering web
applications, based on the Web's unbiquity and interoperability, is
well-proven in practice.
The notion that you can make money by setting up a tollbooth on a piece
of Web infrastructure (and thereby driving out all open-source/free
offerings as a side-effect) is a radical proposal without even an
I think the W3C is trying to do the sensible thing that sensible
business people would go for if they weren't under the influence of
shitforbrains attorneys with "Intellectual Property is Sacred" tatooed
across the inside of their foreheads.
As for Microsoft's motives? Gosh, a RAND licensing policy on *anything*
guarantees that there will be no free-software competition. Doh. -Tim