Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > 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. This is the fundamental error. Certain W3C member representatives are prone to saying "RF is fundamentally against our Business model! We made $big-number last year on our patent portfolio!" These idiots fail to ask themselves how much they made last year because the Web exists and has become a superb application vehicle in some large part on the basis of free software. The notion that you can make money building and delivering web applications, based on the Web's unbiquity and interoperability, is well-proven in practice. The notion that you can make money by setting up a tollbooth on a piece of Web infrastructure (and thereby driving out all open-source/free offerings as a side-effect) is a radical proposal without even an existence proof. I think the W3C is trying to do the sensible thing that sensible business people would go for if they weren't under the influence of shitforbrains attorneys with "Intellectual Property is Sacred" tatooed across the inside of their foreheads. As for Microsoft's motives? Gosh, a RAND licensing policy on *anything* guarantees that there will be no free-software competition. Doh. -Tim
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