On Dec 13, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> I hate to add fuel to the fire, but feel I must respond to some
> inaccurate assertions that have been made.
Doug, I don't believe you added any fuel to the fire, the opposite is
true since your comments do shed light on the issue at hand. I do
appreciate your willingness for having provided more details and
clarification. I will add a few point to the discussion which may or
may not have been part of the internal X12/DISA discussions that will
definitely be raised should X12/DISA go ahead with the program. I also
want to make the point that having spend 12+ years as a very active
X12 participant and contributor that I want X12 EDI standards to
continue to be used and implemented and that my comments are not an
attempt to do negate any of this.
> I have yet to come across a single ANSI SDO that provided standards
> for free (I am sure that there are some out there, but I don't know
> of any).
I do agree with your observation. However, the issue is about a
license fee for software developers to pay and not the cost of
obtaining a copy of the published standards. There is a large
difference. As far as I know there is no standards organization
(domestic or international) that besides charging for a copy of the
published standard also collects a fee from vendors that implement the
standard. Let's not confuse the issue.
> Not sure what you mean by implementers Klaus. We are asking those
> companies that take the X12 standards and produce a product to
> participate in the funding of the organization that develops and
> maintains the standard.
To me that are implementers, but to distinguish between those doing in-
house development with no intent of selling, I will take your point
and will refer to them from now on vendors.
Doug, there is more to standards development and maintenance. EDI
vendors have always been and still are the first level of contact when
it comes to explain the inconsistencies and errors of EDI standards to
the users, their customers. Having been involved in EDI software
development for 20+ years I would strongly suggest that if it were not
for the support provided by EDI vendors that the success of X12 would
not be what it is today. In addition to providing clarification about
the standards, they also provide important education not provided by
X12 about the standards. Yes, one could argue that vendors do it for
the self serving purpose to increase their profit line, but neither
less, without the promotion by the vendor community EDI uptake would
have been much slower and more limited. What good is any standard that
is not being used (implemented)?
Maybe vendors should turn around and start charging X12 every time
they have to deal with the inconsitencies and errors in the published
standard.
Also, what about those vendors that not only were members in the early
days of X12 but made major contributions over many years but today are
no longer members? Will they suddenly be asked to pay a license fee?
You made the point that X12 wants to collect the fees only from those
companies who generate revenue by using DISA/X12 IPR. What about a
multinational company that is not a X12 member but has created its own
EDI application that is used in-house at multiple locations. Clearly
their in-house application has not generated direct revenue, but has
help their profit line by not having to purchase multiple copies of
commercial available products which we all know would not be cheap. So
where does X12/DISA draw the line on who to "send letters to ...
asserting that the companies or individuals have violated X12's
intellectual property rights and must cease and desist unless the
organization/individual becomes a licensee"?
There is also the question does X12 own all the IP contained in its
standard? For much of its existence X12 never had an IPR policy which
transfer contributions (IP) to X12. This is a slippery slope. I am
sure that X12 and DISA have solicited legal advice from IP expert
lawyers about the various issue that could surface should X12/DISA go
ahead with is planned licensing program.
> Since we have not set the amount of the royalty, you can't state
> that it will impact the users.
For most software developers, if not all, it is standard practice to
pass any costs encountered in manufacturing a product on to the
customer. I have never encountered a company which will gladly lower
their profit line, especially public companies, by writing off
manufacturing costs. License fees related to a product have always
been part of any cost projection by the companies I have worked for.
Klaus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
...
Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>,
<JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS
REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
