|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 08:34 AM EST |
Sorry, i wrote that quickly and apparently did not word it
very well... i didn't mean to imply that standards settings
orgs supply the patents, that is clearly the USPTO's job.
what i meant was that offering your patents as a "standard"
made it cheaper and easier to for others to conform in a way
that used to be fair.
and the bit about my idea not being "non-discriminatory" was
basically my point. I think they SHOULD discriminate against
companies that do not supply any effort into setting
standards. Sounds a bit harsh and would probably make it
more difficult for new comers, but it would solve the
problem of companies taking and taking and taking standard
technology (and insisting they be for free) and not giving
back.
again, i wrote all that pretty quickly and probably still
have not cleared up the muddy water i left for you guys.
it's been an incredibly long week - and it's only Wednesday
:(
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 08:41 AM EST |
Also i meant standards are necessary (the patents not so
much). the patent would not be essential if it were not for
the standard, so what i meant is the standard is necessary
and the essential patent required for that standard should
be licensed on a sliding scale based on your contributions
to standards.
BUT -- the more and more i think about this, my idea makes
it quite difficult for new comers to benefit from standards
(punishing them the same as the Apple's and MS's that are
just using the standards).
---
IANAL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|