Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:b6f2b5-22t.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> A long-winded way of avoiding the question...
>>
>> So, is it, or is it not, patent encumbered?
>
> I don't think it is - but that is not really relevant here. All ISO-
> standards have to apply to the ISO (JTC1) IPR-policies of making any
> patents available on either RAND or RAND-Z terms.
>
Indeed it is highly relevant. The purpose of standards is to ensure
interoperability, it is *not* to further the monopolistic ambitions of
individual companies.
RAND is not and has never been effective, in reality, 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.
--
| 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! |
|
|
