[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
just for the record len, seeing as we've spent a lot of time on this....
redhat is now suing sco, essentially for mischief, for claiming ip when
none exists
so ip can protect what you've done, it can also, it is alleged, be used
as a threat and to manipulate the market
imho the w3c needs to be very careful about this binary business
i'd rather see the rdbms model where the external view (rows) and the
access method or api (sql) are are ascii and in the case of sql - a
standard; while the storage of data - possibly binary, and the
optimisers that go with it are as proprietary as you like with all the
ip and other stuff that suits
the important principle being that the data access and interchange are
not ip owned by any one company or individual
xml really should stay the same - the formats are public and specified.
if a company wants to develop and market a system for high speed
transfer of xml data between systems - good luck. if they want to
release a high speed xslt processor - good luck. if you want to offer a
publicly available service - then stick to the ascii, xml 1.0 and
friends.
fwiw i think standardisation in this area will only limit innovation and
increase the costs of participation for smaller companies and
individuals
rick
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 00:39, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Not quite.
>
> http://octaga.com
>
> Sometimes the patented and open technolgies play well
> together and the licensing is paid for by the vendor.
> The end user gets the player for free, but the editor+codec
> may cost and again, the cost of licensing is bundled
> into that. That is how gif was handled. This stuff
> is a problem for open source groups, admittedly, so
> it is better to seek alternatives to licensing. The
> only thing one cannot do is ignore the patents because
> we are back to the indemnity problem. It is better
> to convince the patent holder that the market opportunities
> are better if open source is enabled. That is a
> sales job and not always an easy one.
>
> I am not concerned that firms patent IP as long as they
> play by the rules of the standards and specifications
> organizations when they make a submission, and hide
> no details that taint the products. XML binarization
> is an area in which patents exist. Ok. As long as
> submissions to the W3C or others fit within the policies,
> no problem. It will be a problem if the only acceptable
> solution is one that they will not submit under those
> policies. Then the organizations have to standardize
> an inferior technology or pay the tolls. Fortunately,
> there aren't many technologies for which acceptable
> alternatives aren't available, or that is the position
> some take.
>
> What one must have is a level playing field before
> the law.
>
> len
>
>
> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>
> Somebody stick a fork in MPEG. It's done. In fact its way overcooked.
> Like a dinosaur brain that hasn't yet got the message that its dead
> yet. --courtesy dept of redundancy dept. Better yet, require it carry
> a poison warning symbol.
>
> Taps, please,
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
