Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 113

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

>Business models that require user content IP protection can limit
interoperability based on acceptance of a contract to respect
intellectual property rights with punishments for non-compliance.

Then maybe there's no reason for interoperability? It's ok to debate whether there is isn't a case for operability on the way to discussing the standards. I have yet to hear a cogent "mission statement" that explains what the value-add is for interoperability, what the platform providers gain collectively and individually from this theoretical, arduous, likely costly, and likely non-productive exercise.

>Also, while I agree with you on the I-Phone analogy does demonstrate
one business model, I wanted to make a point that the i-phone uses the
centralized clearing house you argued against with jw (Jon Watte)
regarding There.com

Um, I didn't argue "against" the centralized clearing-model. I pointed out merely that it was a solution to IP theft which many would find too controlling and rigid, especially after being autonomous actors in a free economy in Second Life, and that it would not solve the problems of c/m/t. Like firewalls, it's an internal company solution but it doesn't grapple with the collective problem of interoperability and IP, and the problem of how c/m/t is lost through interoperability unless it is welded in to start with.

Generally, when someone has to start invoking Nizkorisms and begins Fisking and Haskelling and all the rest, they don't have persuasive arguments and facts, and are left to browbeating over "process".  It's usually a reliable marker.



____________________________________________________________
Let great B to B marketing solutions propel your brand to new heights! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTMPaBuiQG6q8ESkQ31Hpx0mWEFSySuje35XRnFh36XYJsXwfi2uA4/