decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Patents required for industry standards? | 429 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Patents required for industry standards?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 06:32 AM EST
The internet/web would like to talk to you about some misconceptions you have.

And so would Linux.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You are assuming only profit and monopoly power motivate people
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 06:25 PM EST
You are wrong.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Reason the more for an MS-celebration
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 13 2013 @ 04:55 AM EST
In world with 'hampered' open standards, there is more room
for 'industry-standards'.

In the case of MS: MS-in-house-developed closed -or
minimally: badly-documented- 'standards'. Pushed upon the
faithful by the 'standard' being bundled with an operating
system or an office productivity suite. All the easier it is
to lock in you 'customers'. With 'regular' changes in the
'standard' to use the compatibility treadmill to coerce the
'customers' to 'upgrade' (or rather prevent from being
'downgraded').

Combine that with the option to patent (non-FRAND-at-all...)
critical parts of the 'standard' in order to lock out
competitors.

I can easily see how this would be reason for a celebration
in Redmond. All part of the plan....

[ 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 )