On Thursday 20 May 2010 09:06:57 Pranesh Prakash wrote: > On Wednesday 19 May 2010 11:42 PM, Nagarjuna G wrote: > > The issue that remains is: as per the definition of open > > standards adopted by the FOSS community, FRAND or RAND should not > > exist. Currently if this policy is adopted, FRAND and RAND > > condition may now become part of open standards definition within > > Indian legal regime. This is a dilution. > > And while we can't change the world of Standard Setting > Organizations (and their use of F/RAND licences) sitting in India > ure that we (at the governmental level) use predominantly > RF/RF-equivalents in India. Indeed, this policy+manual even > encourages B+B & B+C using open standards! > > And to get the world to move away from F/RAND, the government will > have to fight it out at the SSOs, not by changing the Indian > domestic policy (we can only wish we had such clout).
We are grossly under estimating the power of our markets. When fundamental rights violations can be given a quiet burial in difference to the markets, I really fail to see how insistence on open standards is a problem. But the above is a practical biz detail. The real issue is patents on a list of descriptions, which is even more non physical than software. If software cannot be patented, primarily due to software being maths, how do you justify a patent on a list of things. I presume here that copyright on standards is a non issue, due to the nature of being a standard. IMO this is the thin edge of the wedge to enabling patents on lists of symbols (software, genetic maps, business processes). -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
