Cleanup.

[homepage.git] / blog / data / 2012-04-19-rand.txt

diff --git a/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt b/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt
index 6efa68ca02f846b22a7f594d85ec75cfb8d65be6..c6a41408357b0c4d312a57e31d06b563a7e65c77 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt
+++ b/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ implementing standards with RAND terms.</p>
 <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
@@ -45,3 +45,13 @@ attention to these issues in the future.</p>
 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>