On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Vickram Crishna<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.]
The objective of a policy on open standards is to ensure long term data preservation. The objective of innovation should be addressed through the patents policy. I have to agree with Vikram that this is an appalling and misleading article. Venky _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
