RAND direction proposal

Hello,

I am unhappy on what we are facing with that proposed way.

its okay so far if one wants to make a standard out of a patent,
but its not okay for if standards are misused for making money.

and even if there is no revenue - it might still cost the users or
the software and hardware vendors a good amount of money.

but the worst scenario is that the standard cannot evolve unless
the patents holder does approve this. This effect will not only
be limited to the standard but to any sort of implementation.
Even if a third party has a built-upon patent handy that will
work on the standard and improve it and the related products,
the holder of the base patent is still in the postition to kill
any such approach, regardless who did it.

i dont see any good in having standards that contain a footer
which refers to a patent held be a comercial organisation.
But i wont limit it only to business organisations but i see
the problem will rise by principle in such a constellation.
Its not a question of trustability, if say the univeristy of carolina
is owner of a patent that is a standard as well, but it is much
more a problem of complexity that will be merged into the
standard with no chance of getting rid of it at reasonable time.
This will decrease the value of such a standard for any sort
of possible user. The standard will be less successful therefore.

Regards, AlexS.

PS: It would be much nicer if the US would stop patents on 
intellectual property as it is practiced now - it really did block 
economy more than it did advance it. Its not funny to live in a 
technical environment where anybody could have patented any 
simple mouse click and youd never know untill you get sued. 
The only thing where patents should be applicable are outrageous
new ways of making the powers of nature beneficial to mankind.

If we want to get a single world, we cannot afford that some central
standards of our way of living are owed by a few organisations.

Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 13:37:44 UTC