decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

would anyone contribute then? | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
would anyone contribute then?
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:22 PM EST
It "cost" billions to develop GNU/Linux.

Have you noticed any of those contributors
suing Microsoft or Apple?

Just google "Linux worth billions".

Do you see why it is being attacked?

Those that are addicted to money do not like
competition that does not contribute to their pockets.


You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I call troll! -- Not!
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:39 PM EST

I wish I could call you a troll, but instead, after only very brief reflection, I am forced to agree with you. It is only due to consortia of private companies taking the initiative to come together to create standards that we have interoperability on thousands of important issues. Leaving it to governments to decide on standards would be about as effective as the United Nations is at world government - that is to say, not at all.

Without industrial initiative we would have fragmented technologies and competing networks and endless wars while companies battle to lock you into to their way of doing things. We wouldn't have universal audio and video formats, nor cell phones that work just about anywhere in the world, or even TVs and radios that receive a broad range of programming, just to mention a few things. Certainly companies individually from time to time will try to lock us in, but the majority of companies see mutual benefit in interoperability, and will in the end overcome the minority who don't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

would anyone contribute then?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:45 PM EST
Think about what standards are for in the first place. When everyone is on the
same page in a particular area of technology (we'll use C++ code for example),
it makes it simple to deploy that standard in a manner in which everyone can use

Think about HTML code (and IE's horrible idea of standards compliance).

If you want a certain technology to be a standard, then you obviously want
everyone to join in and share that technology in a way that it remains
compatible with everyone else that uses that standard.

Where would we be today if IBM had not allowed everyone to clone their PC
architecture? This was something that IBM wanted to get out there. Do we pay
IBM royalties for that? Not a dime.

Can you imagine having to pay a royalty in order to write your own program in
C/C++? It wouldn't be a very popular language if that were the case.

The Internet wouldn't exist if there were penalty charges for compliance to
RFCs. How much money was dumped into creating the technology that resulted in
the Internet?

The standards that we follow in my workplace are not vendor specific, and they
should never be. When a company expects you to pay a royalty for being
standards complaint, then that standard has become vendor specific.

Imagine building your dream home, and the inspector comes to check your frame
work. He tells you that it will not pass inspection because you have not used
wood from a specific mill. That is where standards are heading if these things
persist, and there will come a time when no one will take the standards bodies
seriously unless they stop this foolishness.

Companies that want their technology to become an official standard should NOT
punish people for trying to come into compliance with that standard. It's
counter-productive, counter-intuitive and absurd.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )