A Jesuit's Guide to Open Standards

[ Thanks to Glyn Moody for this link. ]

"The logic here seems to be that there would be an "imbalance" in open standards if it were insisted that patents terms were excluded – because balance obviously means having standards with and without patents. While it's true that creates a "balance", it's a purely linguistic one; the fact is that patent-encumbered standards requiring licensing fees cannot, by definition, be open. That's because they do not create level playing fields: there is always one or more players who occupy a privileged position. So the balance is entirely specious."

Complete Story

Related Stories:

• Patents, Video, and an Open Internet(Aug 03, 2009)
• Patent reformer becomes troll, sues defunct OSS company(Jul 30, 2009)
• SFLC: Microsoft violated the GPL (Jul 29, 2009)
• Microsoft wins 'emotiflag' patent, despite Lotus Notes precedent(Jul 27, 2009)
• Why are people attacking RMS?(Jul 21, 2009)
• On Patents, Promises and 'Ugly' Patches(Jul 18, 2009)
• Complete Guide to Playing Movies and Music on Linux(Jul 17, 2009)
• Microsoft signs LInux patent deal with Buffalo Tech(Jul 16, 2009)