RE: Cutting special deals for open source developers -- nowa
Good question. Why was XML created as a subset and attempt to improve ISO SGML? Why was it done under the aegis of a commercial consortium instead of SGML Open or even ISO, or at IBM where much of the original development was done and a fat patent could have been granted? Who gets to say, "This group governs but this other group is too old and too slow to manage its own works?" Spy vs Spy. Who decides? No one. They just duke it out or they cooperate. What about the "lone hacker", the Apple myth? It is romantic but wrong. Patent holders often have to fight for their lives when large consortia and companies squeeze the profits out of them by denying them access to various other sources of revenue. Others such as the MPEG group band together and have patent pools. They are wildly successful. What if the W3C instituted a policy that patents on work done at the W3C would be held in common and profits divided among holding members? Who would benefit? Who would get hurt? As far as I can tell, the argument against encumbered specifications is that the W3C has little power against its own members to control their use of the patenting process, so their most viable alternative is to have a policy that refuses any patented technology or work that might involve it. As I said before, it will be a moral position and it will limit their scope. The patenting process will keep on increasing in volume until the laws are changed. But to what? Without the patent process, what constraints are there on the W3C or other organizations to rob the poor and give to the rich who by dint of membership have all the early access to the information and by dint of size, can crush any other individual or organization working in the field but unwilling or unable to join the W3C? This isn't a simple problem. It demands clear policy and something will have to give for that to be formulated. I doubt anyone will be completely happy with the results. len -----Original Message----- From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@u...] As I was reading your story, I was thinking -- why are they developing in a market that someone else dominates? Why don't they spend their time looking for something truly new to do, instead of refining someone else's product? And what of the company with 80 percent market share? Should they be vulnerable to a handful of features? What about the rest of the fanatical chess player's product -- is it competitive with the dominant company's product? That's doubtful if they were able to catch up with only three months of development. If the users of the BigCo's product want the features should they have to use the other company's product to get them? Also, the BigCo appears to have competion in your case study. (The other 20 percent.) Why shouldn't the smart designer do a deal with them to go after the dominant market leader? Should it require persistence to defeat a market leader or just an idea and a lawyer? I believe it should require persistence, and that there's always a zig possible to the leaders' zag -- something clever you can do that they can't do, precisely because they lead. BTW, this is a common argument -- and people buy into it because it's so romantic -- the lone inventor who succeeds because patents protected him. But that is just a romantic story, in the real world the patent holders are often the BigCo's who act to keep the entrepreneur out of the market altogether.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format