On 7/03/2016 9:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
We haven’t been talking about mandating of open specifications, except to the extent necessary to comply with existing consumer law.
Theme and variations: can an entity have a specification with restricted licensing practices, possibly include cryptography to protect it. Very clearly, yes.
Anticompetitive conduct is illegal in Australia. I think FLARM has as case to answer:
And what device did you write this email on? There's at least half a dozen identical cases there. USB, HDMI, Thunderbolt, Firewire, Intel Chip Socket layout etc - all semi open or closed data communications specifications that require licensing fees to implement, sometimes protected by cryptography. Did you use an Android device or iPhone/iPad today? Did you print something today? All use exactly the same mecahnism of cryptographically protected intellectual property (Signed graphics drivers, USB cable mods, Ink Cartridges in the previous three examples). All perfectly OK here in Oz. FLARM are completely within their rights to do what they've done.
-- Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/ Java 3D Graphics Information http://www.j3d.org/ LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/ G+ WetMorgoth ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights. Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many frames or one frame for many lights?" -Subcomandante Marcos ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
