|
|
|
|
|
|
by voidwtf
844 days ago
|
|
|
You are right, I conflated the two a bit there. It is an important distinction/difference but with a similar outcome. Especially egregious to me that often the people pushing the newer standards are the same ones signing on to be part of the patent pool. I guess my feeling is that if you want to make it a standard, it should be unencumbered by patents, paywalls, and NDAs. Otherwise how can you expect me to implement the standard? These companies often make these advancements because it's beneficial to their bottom line, because they can utilize fewer resources or provide a better product to their customers. They then expect everyone to implement their standards so they can reap the benefit of those changes with all their customers. |
|
|
Well, when you are developing a standard, there is no guarantee that every person who owns a patent will reveal themselves. There’s no guarantee your due diligence will find them all either. You could develop a completely open standard, someone announces they’ve got a patent, and if they win in court, that’s the end of it being an open standard.
> These companies often make these advancements because it's beneficial to their bottom line, because they can utilize fewer resources or provide a better product to their customers.
That’s just called business. That’s not evil, and if Linux didn’t benefit their bottom line, it would not be usable today (considering over 90% of contributions are from the big evil companies).