[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 fun

• To: 'Rich Salz' <rsalz@d...>
• Subject: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:43:48 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

We know that RF has worked in a set of limited cases and 
mostly for core technologies or loss leaders.  We don't 
know if RAND limits customer choice.  It limits the ability of 
a competitor to use a technology they did not develop.  
This depends on whether or not alternatives exist which 
are reasonably close in capability, eg, the XML compression 
technique now owned by MPEG.

As for market amplification, that's hard to predict. 
Why hasn't Adobe given up the rights to PDF, or Sun 
the rights to Java?  Why is Adobe pursuing closed 
technologies for its real time 3D (Atmosphere) instead 
of contributing to X3D?

The exceptions exist and are very easy to find.  Look.

len

From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@d...]

> 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.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

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