🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <scs.725162283@wotan.iti.org>, scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
> Those two sentences sound contradictory to me.  Don't IEEE and ANSI
> require all the technologies involved in a standard to be in the public
> domain?

No, they don't.  They simply want the assurances given in the document,
that access be reasonably-priced and non-discriminatory.  Want a good
example?  DES and Ethernet were patented.  (The DES patents have since
expired, and carried no license fee in any event.  Technically, though,
I think one needed a license, and I've heard rumors (that I never
confirmed) that one could get a license if and only if one agreed to
use only the four standard modes of operation.)

Yes, it surprised me, too, when I learned that proprietary technologies
could be blessed by ANSI and IEEE.  Then I thought a bit more.  These
are organizations that serve *businesses*, not universities.
Businesses, in general, do not object to paying reasonable fees for
services rendered; after all, they themselves charge for similar
services.  Now, they may disagree as to the validity of particular
patents, or even about the principle behind certain patents (though
businesses rarely have principles, per se, as opposed to bottom lines),
but paying for designs and specifications is quite common in the business
world.  Academe is different, of course; there, free software, educational
discounts, etc., are the norm.

Even the IAB has blessed RSA for PEM, for the simple reason that no
alternative seemed feasible.  And yes, a reasonable license fee is
being charged, though a substantial portion of it is for the certification
hierarchy, rather than for patent royalties.