Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
To be part of the W3C and participate in harvesting subsets of other organizations' standards you must pay $$$. Spy Vs Spy. The W3C isn't a commons arbiter. It is a commercial consortium. The myth of its moral majesty is well-exposed at this point. As for the W3C not labeling as commons that which is not, I completely agree. That is why they must have a RAND policy and all the argument comes down to is if they will have the flexibility other spec and standards orgs have: the ability to negotiate RAND terms for non-RF for their members. In other words, the field owner must decide if he is to donate land use to a commercial trust. len -----Original Message----- From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...] > Patents do not extort. They are licensed. The fact that the extortion has bought-and-sold parts of the legal system behind it doesn't make it any less an extortion process. In fact it makes the "tax" part of the analogy even stronger. "To be a part of the on-line global commons, you must pay $N to this company, $M to that one, ..." "No taxation without representation", as the saying went a few hundred years back. Of course, today corporations can buy representation that citizens can't, including free access to "patents" which were once handed out only to Friends of the King ... > You are > demanding other's property for free if the W3C > harvests it. The W3C labels fields as part of the commons. You can still harvest from Farmer Z's field, if he/she lets you; likely you'd have to pay to do that. W3C needs to be preventing Z's field from being labeled "commons" if it's not actually commons.
|
