> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Raber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> > I don't have an issue with Sun covering the costs of sponsoring the
> > standardization activity (cost of doing business).
>
> But how can they come up with what the actual costs of "standardization"
> are?
Whatever the costs are, they aren't a percentage royalty of all the companies
gross profits who implement the spec. The business cost of "standardization"
is fixed. It's the sum of the fully burdened rate of each person working on
it. This certainly seems like a blatant attempt to make a profit off the
standard, not just the covering of the cost of doing business.
> > But the water is muddied when they compete with their partners with their
> > own commercial J2EE server offerings.
>
> Indeed! Isn't this (part of) precisly the problems MS is having in the
> anti-trust case? I.e., the internal folks getting unfair advantage?
If nothing else, it has the appearances of such. Something that any ethics
class would tell you is a big no-no.
As is usual with humans, the watch phrase is: "We have to become the enemy in
order to defeat them".
> > Seems to me the standardization and branding should be done be a separate
> > legal entity.
>
> Do you think that requires a "formal" standards organization like ISO or do
> you think that a Sun spin-off which isolated the Java standards from Sun
> would be sufficient or what?
If they can't stand the open standards heat, then they should get out of the
open standards kitchen.
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
