[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fu

• To: "'pdurusau@e...'" <pdurusau@e...>
• Subject: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:37:53 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

I believe it is a matter of not allowing exceptions when 
exceptions may be warranted.  Had the W3C made a better 
job of policy for the rare exception when RAND would be 
better for everyone, you'd have a case.

If RF weren't good for them in some cases, why would they 
have contributed as much as they have?  Because it was 
and they did.  Again, if the W3C sticks to the really 
fundamental technologies, I think this will go as 
you say.  If they stray into applications which are 
say, Internet capable, but not Internet itself, they 
will meet resistance in some quarters where the business 
advisors have a very good head for ROI.

len


From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:pdurusau@e...]

I understand that Microsoft and Turner have contributed to the common 
good. What I disagree with is the view reported as held by their 
customers that RF standards are not good for them personally.  Perhaps 
that is true in very limited or closed systems, but that has not been 
the experience with web standards thus far, or at least no one has yet 
cited any evidence to the contrary.

I realize that it is easy to say that licensing software/patents will be 
greater "their good" but if that were really the case, other than a lot 
of loose talk there would be some hard evidence to support that view.  I 
am not an economist but I don't think all the claims that new business 
models are evolving are just talk. The model used by MySQL, for example, 
would have been unthinkable in the mid-1960's. Does not mean that it 
will last but the evidence that something has changed is too great to 
simply  igmore. 

I don't think the W3C will lack for standards to write that are 
important and don't infringe on IP as the next generation of markup 
languages and technologies remain to be written. Vendors who support 
that sort of furtherance of infrastructure, as has Microsoft, Sun, IBM 
and a host of others, will be the first to profit from those new 
languages and technologies.

I think there will always be a lot of important work to be done at the 
W3C and vendors with better business advisors will be supporting it.

• Prev by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by Date: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Previous by thread: RE: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Next by thread: RE: ConciseXML syntax --> no thank u!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread