Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Given these two statements: Cargill: "Why did the other people duck their responsibilities? This was part of the standards process, why did it have to be W3C; where was ISO (International Standards Organisation), where was ANSI (American National Standards Institute)?" then "RAND terms originally formulated by the International Standards Organisation have been adopted by most other standards bodies such as the International Telecommunications Union and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers." It isn't that the issue has never come up before. It is that the issue was successfully avoided by the W3C including the Director who is now expected to solve it. So the W3C failed and that first statement is Sun propaganda. The W3C has to discontinue the harvest until the boundaries of the common are determined. (It's only a tragedy if you fail to work out the rules of use.) Cargill: "This is where having Tim Berners-Lee as the person who holds ultimate reign is important. He will do what is best for the Web." So if Sun can't solve it, IBM can't solve it, Berners-Lee is expected to get from between the rock of his membership (a king) and the hard place of the online community (a religion) puts him. Shades of Thomas Beckett.... Patents do not extort. They are licensed. You are demanding other's property for free if the W3C harvests it. Otherwise, there is no issue here. len -----Original Message----- From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...] http://it.mycareer.com.au/news/2001/10/09/FFX52P06JSC.html This story includes a judgement ("back to the drawing board") that's perhaps a bit premature. Interesting question: how many peoples' comments to W3C addressed problems with that policy beyond its willingness to support using (mostly first world) patent law to extort license taxes from the whole world?
|
