On Mar 7, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Richard Frawley <[email protected]> wrote: > Flarm have done a great job over the many years supplying a reliable, life > saving product that cost less than some of your Varios.
That doesn’t give them a right to a monopoly. > Like you Mike, they have every right to protect their IP and make a living. I > don’t see you rushing to Open Sourcing your codes. Nobody is talking about open sourcing code. We’re talking about standards. You know this, because I made the same distinction on Friday. Standards are ROUTINELY open. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t have been able to send your email message or receive this one. > Open Source has its place, as does Proprietary supply. You’re talking about “source”, so you’re having the wrong argument. Nobody cares about FLARM’s source code. > Right now, Flarm licence their code and design to 9 other parties. Those > parties add their own value into the supply chain. As such, its a competitive > market. It would be a competitive market if it was possible for a competitor to launch a competing product without paying some of their profit margin to their competitor in the form of a license fee. It is not possible to play in this market space at the moment without enriching FLARM. It is not possible for a consumer to vote with their wallet, because no matter where they send their money, FLARM skims the cream. It isn’t a competitive market, it’s a restraint of trade. - mark _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
