RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
Urrrp.... 1. The MPEG patents aren't U.S. IPR. Red herring, Rick. BTW, I agree that the copyright laws are becoming ever more absurd. Apparently so did Ginsburg but stated rightly, it is not their job to set policy for Congress. OTOH, anyone who thinks that the international systems for patents will vanish in an act of good will toward the Internet or for the particular good of open source software simply isn't in business. Stock holders would eviscerate the CEOs and boards. Still, no rule holds in all cases. AIDS drugs are not in the same category as Internet product specifications. But they aren't cheap either and until they are, means must be found among and between pharmaceutical corporations and governments to see to it that these are provided to those in need. The same isn't true of Pentium processors. 2. European, Japanese, etc. patent laws are just as enforced. China is beginning to enforce these laws as well as part of honoring trade agreements. The bad taste comes of theft. 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. Let's be clear: as long as the W3C sticks to "fundamental" technology exclusively used for the Internet, the so-called commodities, as I said before, I believe it will continue to receive submissions. Otherwise, once one starts getting into the applications sphere (say VoiceXML), all bets are off. These are products, not commodities, and subsidizing the competitor without a research budget isn't a good business model. If one really wants to think that all software used on the Internet anywhere anytime by anybody is "fundamental", then some parts of the "fundamental Internet framework" may become standardized using diluted, also ran technologies while the patented technologies are sold and integrated into the Internet anyway under the aegis of other consortia and cartels or by plain old outselling the competition. I don't think Turner is threatening. He is stating probable outcomes. Over time, the W3C will be marginalized. Patented technology too good to overlook will be stolen just as it always has been. Lawsuits will follow. Lawyers will make money. Some businesses without the deep pockets to keep up the fight will fold. Others will receive hefty chunks of money for their due diligence. What is being overestimated is the lasting sales value of the W3C imprimatur. That is what is wrong with Patrick's assertion. len From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...] From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> > Are the trends you think applicable from the W3C > spec adoption sustainable in the future? IOW, is > that a merely historical or an inevitable trend? As more countries assert their independence from US IPR law on technologies of national importance, I think there is more chance that entertainment-based IPR technology will be allowed as a trade-off against the negation of IPR on fundamental Internet technologies. Non-US governments will say "We simply will not accept IPR on AIDS drugs and foundation internet protocols; but to keep US trade dogs at bay, we will stop piracy of the Lion King." I think US people and people who travel in business rather than technical/policy circles, should not underestimate the bad taste that US IPR impositions have to the rest of the world. W3C would be crazy to get involved in this political dispute by allowing non-RF technology in its specs.
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