Unfortunately, despite the behaviour of the publication over the past few years, it is commonly accepted to be a credible source of information. Now, while the article is appalling, I think rather than write a rebuttal, it is better to question the premise, and implicitly thereby the antecedents of the author(s)/supporter(s). A rebuttal on technical issues only serves to imply that any of the points have substance. Here's a possible draft reply:
[Mr Gangopadhyay says, "The evolution of a good standard should be left to the market place not to experts, regardless of how brilliant they are." The fundamental premise of a market driven policy approach is the involvement of all stakeholders. Any economist who argues differently must be marching to a different drummer. The feeble argument that innovation is only possible through commercial development suggests that designs for commercial viability need not include long-term sustainability. Policy (for which standards are implicit) is for the long haul, not merely to further the hegemony of monopolists in the short term.] On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Anivar Aravind <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi all, > > I think someone must Respond to Shubhasis Gangopadhy's ET article > against Open Standards policy > > > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Open-versus-multiple-standards/articleshow/4858226.cms > > Anivar > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
