• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:41:03 +1100
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE24@h...>

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.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by Date: Re: Adam Bosworth Article - what does "direct access"mean?
• Previous by thread: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by thread: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more patent fun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread