• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:17:31 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3E283DB0.7020507@t...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE28@h...> <3E283DB0.7020507@t...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

> 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.

Or it might be a business win because now we'll get 10% of a $bn market 
than 90% of a $10M market.

Ya never know.  We do know that, so far, RF has worked; the only thing 
we know about RAND is that customer choice will be limited.
	/r$

• References:
  • RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Previous by thread: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
• Next by thread: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread