Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 549822
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: they gave notice, thats nice
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 08:20
in reply to "RE[5]: they gave notice, thats nice"
3G, LTE and WiFI are developer in an open way. They are not called open because you can get documentation.
Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.
Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.
Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.
Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.
Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.
Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.
You raise good points. Do you agree/disagree on royalties disqualifying a standard from being "open"?
If EAS were developed in the open, with community participation, but still had essential patents disclosed (and licensed reasonably*), would you consider it open?
* reasonable licensing doesn't necessarily imply FRAND, though it helps, obviously.
RE[7]: they gave notice, thats nice
by shmerl on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 08:56
in reply to "RE[6]: they gave notice, thats nice"
RE[7]: they gave notice, thats nice
by JAlexoid on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 16:45
in reply to "RE[6]: they gave notice, thats nice"
FRAND obligations and reasonable licensing with Microsoft giving up exclusive control over the protocol would not necessarily imply that the standard is open or closed.
Currently EAS is much more accessible than any GSM standard. Microsoft is giving out licenses easily and they are not expensive.




Member since:
2009-05-19
3G, LTE and WiFI are developer in an open way. They are not called open because you can get documentation.
Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.
Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.
Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.
Edited 2013-01-22 07:52 UTC