Title: RAND terms - non-reasonable and discriminatory
Tags: english, nuug, standard, video, multimedia
-Date: 2012-04-19 23:00
+Date: 2012-04-19 22:20
<p>Here in Norway, the
<a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad.html?id=339"> Ministry of
<p>Because of this, when I see someone claiming the terms of a
standard is reasonable and non-discriminatory, all I can think of is
how this really is non-reasonable and discriminatory. Because free
-software developers are working in a global marked, it does not really
+software developers are working in a global market, it does not really
help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable
in Norway. The patent regimes in other countries affect us even here.
I really hope the people behind the standard directory will pay more
from Simon Phipps
(<a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-reasonable/">RAND:
Not So Reasonable?</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Update 2012-04-21: Just came across a
+<a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/of-microsoft-netscape-patents-and-open-standards/index.htm">blog
+post from Glyn Moody</a> over at Computer World UK warning about the
+same issue, and urging people to speak out to the UK government. I
+can only urge Norwegian users to do the same for
+<a href="http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder">the
+hearing taking place at the moment</a> (respond before 2012-04-27).
+It proposes to require video conferencing standards including
+specifications with RAND terms.</p>