Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 12:16 AM EDT |
That is, in the 123 case, there was an identified, tangible utility...
I also think that a british-style non-discriminatory licensing requirement would
have significant utility with those "lock out the aftermarket"
connectors.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 14 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT |
Regarding interfaces, there is a reasonable argument that
allowing IP on interface design does more harm than good.
Absolutely. What there is not, and never can be, is any reasonable,
slightly-silly, very-silly, or anything-less-than-stark-bonkers-insane argument
that allowing IP on interface design does any good whatsoever.
The social "good" of allowing IP on something is whatever value there
is in making it more likely to be widely disseminated. (There can be no possible
economic good: the income from IP on interfaces is not just the dollar cost to
users, but the inconvenience penalties of switching interfaces between products:
that's why IBM, Microsoft, etc., publish standard interfaces and strongly
encourage developers to use them.) BUT the only value of an interface to its
owner is ... to get people to use it: and to accomplish that, it has to be
published.
IBM was never motivated to keep, say, the Fortran language specifications
secret: quite the reverse--even though publishing the specifications made it
possible for competitors to implement it. AND many customers, MOST wisely,
refused to use the language UNTIL other alternative implementations were
available. Yes, an interface is more marketable TO ITS ORIGINAL DESIGNER,
precisely BECAUSE another implementation appears.
Anyone who's trying to lock up an interface, is not thinking economically,
they're thinking sociopathically--like the thug who causes thousands of dollars
damage to a car, just to steal the CD player which is worth a few tens of
dollars when fenced. And they should feel the long arm of the law just like the
thug.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|