Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:bujmb5-aep.ln1
> @ellandroad.demon.co.uk:
>
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>>
>> RAND is not and has never been effective, in reality, it specifically
>> discriminates against foss solutions.
>
> But still - it is the way ISO does it. There is nothing to do about it,
> really.
It's a recent policy change, it happened within the last 20 years or
less. As it was a change, it can, therefore, be changed back again.
Further, it should be changed back again, since it specifically
discriminates against foss solutions.
>
>> The acceptance of patent-encumbered standards in international bodies is
>> a relatively recent thing, pushed in the main by the US, and was a grave
>> error.
>>
>> Again, anyone involved in standards development ought to be able to see
>> this. Unless, of course, they're working simply to extend someone's
>> monopoly.
>
> Well, anybody involved in standards development ought to be able to tell
> the difference between the words "shall" and "should". I personally fought
> like a mad man to change the original "shall" to a "should" since it is
> Denmark's position not to enforce implementation of specific formats when
> complying with a specific standard. No matter how you keep avoiding this
> essential part - the word "should" in ISO-terms means that it is a
> suggestion - not a requirement. There is no "strong-arming" here.
I think you perhaps misunderstand what "should" means; it means
"ought-to". Whilst it does permit deviance from the recommendation,
but it most certainly does not encourage it.
As far as avoiding specific formats goes, the statement is so broad that
without context, it's virtually impossible to take a meaningful view of
it.
>
> Also - look at the huge amount of standards e.g. ODF and OOXML refer to and
> use. To name a few, W3C XML, W3C XML Schema, ISO RelaxNG, ISO PNG, W3C XSL-
> FO, W3C SVG.
>
> Do you know if any of these are "patent emcumbered"? Can you prove that
> they are not? I know of at least one of the above that supposedly is patent
> covered and the holder of the patent threatened to enforce it. Find it
> yourself on noooxml.org ... look for the phrase "patent ambush".
>
I know that W3C's rules require that there is no patent involved in
their work. I know that ISO permit such patents. These are two
positions of certainty. The simplest analysis, therefore, shows that
W3C standards should be preferred since they guarantee the avoidance of
attempts by companies to shovel patents in under the carpet of the
standard, whereas, as you state above, ISO encourages such behaviour.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
