Re: [codec] Fwd: COM 16-LS 124 - Outgoing LS from SG16 meeting (26 October

Welcome to the world of standards. This issue almost tore the W3C  
apart. At the end of the day, after a year of fierce, destructive  
fighting, we ended up pretty much where we started from.

This stuff has to do with law and business, neither of which seem to  
be governed by the laws of physics. That is, logic does not apply.

On Nov 11, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

> Stephan Wenger wrote:
>
>> RAND does NOT mean that all possible users will get the same terms  
>> after the
>> bilateral discussions that are common in licensing.  That is one  
>> reasons why
>> licensing discussions are typically under NDA.
>
> I wouldn't expect so, and I certainly understand why negotiations are
> frequently under NDA. However, it essentially removes all the 'teeth'
> from the 'ND' part of 'RAND'. If I approach a patent holder and they
> offer me licensing at 10 times the rate they have ever charged any
> previous party (because I am a competitor, or I am a small company, or
> they don't like the color of my company's logo), I would think that  
> most
> people would consider that discriminatory. Since there is no recourse,
> their 'offer' to license under RAND could be considered to be in bad
> faith, and they can continue to make such offers in further
> standards-making processes without any concerns raised by the  
> receivers
> of those offers.
>
> -- 
> Kevin P. Fleming
> Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
> 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
> skype: kpfleming | jabber: kpfleming@digium.com
> Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

Re: [codec] Fwd: COM 16-LS 124 - Outgoing LS from SG16 meeting (26 October - 6 November 2009)