|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST |
You gave a nice set of arguments for why paying for
standards doesn't work, in many ways they are correct.
However you didn't give any reason for publically traded
companies to contribute to these standards. Yes IBM giving
away the PC was great, but there was an advantage to that,
more parts that would work together creating, giving them
access to better parts to build their computers, improving
there general product, which gave them a bigger customer
base they could sell things to and so on. What incentive
would there be to give away the patents on LTE 4G? Or at
least what incentive would there be to give it away to
anyone but you allies in the smart phone wars? Which you
could do without making it a standard probably if you were
careful. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:01 AM EST |
That's not the way I remember learning that history.
Couldn't stop them is more the way I understand it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:08 AM EST |
No, the standard says that all two by fours must be of a certain size (WxHxL),
should be of a certain family of woods, they must all contain a certain
percentage of moisture to be used in framing a house, they may not contain flaws
that exceed certain dimensions, etc.
Some "company", after much testing of construction materials at their
expense, set the "standard" for construction materials that all follow
- any two by four that is sold commercially for construction use is the same as
any other two by four sold for the same purpose - that's a standard.
It does not say that they have to be from the same company; if it did, then the
"standard" will not be used by others, and a new "standard"
would have to be devised on different IP that did not conflict with the original
patents.
Said "company", having spent much on research and development, is
certainly entitled to be compensated for the work they have done in setting the
"standard" (that others have agreed IS the standard to be used). What
FRAND is is a commitment to keep the playing field reasonably level, that is,
not to "freeze out" any company that wants to use the standard - to
negotiate "in good faith" a "reasonable royalty" (not
necessarily the same royalty) with each entity who wishes to "play" in
the area that requires the use of the "standard".
Or are you just a Microsoft Troll? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|