3 ms·

> "if I spent the time, risk, effort, and money to develop the pre-eminent protocol and hardware used by most TV's in the world... would I want to give that wor

by dwattttt 11mo ago

> "if I spent the time, risk, effort, and money to develop the pre-eminent protocol and hardware used by most TV's in the world... would I want to give that work away for free?" This is absolutely fine. But it should preclude them from becoming a public standard.

andybak 11mo ago
Devil's Advocate time. Would the result of that be better or worse quality public standards? (I don't actually know what I think off the cuff - but it's the obvious follow on question to your statement and I don't think your statement can stand on it's own without a well argued counter)
- dwattttt 11mo ago
  It's a fine question. I think the onus is on public regulatory bodies responsible for the standards; if they aren't able to pay for the work to be published as an open standard, it wasn't worth the cost.
  - rcxdude 11mo ago
    Standards also benefit the industry as a whole, and it's generally in the interests of the companies involves to participate in the standardisation process anyway. Charging for the description of them is just a cherry on top (compared to e.g. licensing any relevant patents), I don't believe it's at all required to incentivize a standardization process. (this is of course looking at interoperation standards - regulatory bodies are going to be more concerned with e.g. safety standards)
throw0101a 11mo ago
> This is absolutely fine. But it should preclude them from becoming a public standard. Define "public standard". And how is HDMI one of them? HDMI is a private bundle of IP that the license holders are free to give (or not give) to anyone. We're not talking about a statue by a government 'of the people' what should be public. No one is mandated by any government to implement it AFAICT: and even if it was, it would be up to the government to make sure they only reference publicly available documents in laws.

andybak 11mo ago

Devil's Advocate time. Would the result of that be better or worse quality public standards? (I don't actually know what I think off the cuff - but it's the obvious follow on question to your statement and I don't think your statement can stand on it's own without a well argued counter)

dwattttt 11mo ago
It's a fine question. I think the onus is on public regulatory bodies responsible for the standards; if they aren't able to pay for the work to be published as an open standard, it wasn't worth the cost.
- rcxdude 11mo ago
  Standards also benefit the industry as a whole, and it's generally in the interests of the companies involves to participate in the standardisation process anyway. Charging for the description of them is just a cherry on top (compared to e.g. licensing any relevant patents), I don't believe it's at all required to incentivize a standardization process. (this is of course looking at interoperation standards - regulatory bodies are going to be more concerned with e.g. safety standards)

throw0101a 11mo ago

> This is absolutely fine. But it should preclude them from becoming a public standard. Define "public standard". And how is HDMI one of them? HDMI is a private bundle of IP that the license holders are free to give (or not give) to anyone. We're not talking about a statue by a government 'of the people' what should be public. No one is mandated by any government to implement it AFAICT: and even if it was, it would be up to the government to make sure they only reference publicly available documents in laws.