4 ms·

DIN is the German ANSI

by thomasz 13y ago

chalst 13y ago
Like ANSI, DIN is not a branch of government, but a self-regulated non-profit institute (an e.V.) Their FAQ describes their relationship to the government: > What is the role of the government or the European Commission in standardization? > Standardization is a form of economic self-regulation, relieving the state of the responsibility for developing detailed technical specifications while ensuring that a standard reflects the state of technology. Because the state has an interest in standardization, particularly in the occupational safety and health sectors, it funds DIN projects in sectors which are in the public interest. http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=55343&menurubricid=55343&level=tpl-rubrik&menuid=47566&languageid=en&cmsareaid=47566#Role%20of%20government http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=55343&menurubricid=55343&leve...
- belorn 13y ago
  So let me see if I understand this right. The EU has created several safety laws that each countries must follow. The laws then in turn reference proprietary written standards by DIN, which people need to buy in order to actually follow and understand the law. Is that correct?
  - chalst 13y ago
    I don't know about ANSI, but the IEEE is a US non-profit standards body, and you need to buy its standards to claim compliance with them. This, and fees for testing products, is generally how non-governmental standards institutes fund themselves.
    - varjag 13y ago
      You also have to pay for ANSI/NIST standard texts, ITU, ISO standards, and for EU industrial standard texts. It's nothing out of ordinary. EDIT: I see ITU has made their standards free of charge since 2007.
  - ThePhysicist 13y ago
    Yes, and no. DIN basically takes European and international norms and translates them so that they conform to the German law and can thus be used in Germany. This is not just a matter of simple translation but of adaptation since all documents issued by the European Union are published in all languages of the member states anyway. Companies could of course just take the European norms and implement them by themselves, but since adapting these norms to German law is complicated they choose to buy a certified DIN report which provides them legal security. Now you can of course argue if this service should be provided for free or not. On their website, DIN points out a few reasons why they charge money for their reports: http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=197041&menurubricid=197041&level=tpl-rubrik&menuid=47562&languageid=en&cmsareaid=47562 http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=197041&menurubricid=197041&le... So basically it's not Germany that "threatens" the guy which published these norms, but a company suing an individual for publishing copyrighted work.
    - belorn 13y ago
      Is the standard referencing the law, or the law referencing the standard? The distinction between those two are quite important.
      - Tomte 13y ago
        The law references the standard(s), but only as optional. See the link to the English translation of the Product Safety Act that I posted in another comment. Article 4 is relevant.
        belorn 13y ago
        Thanks, but the more I read about this, the more I start to dislike it. Just because its optional doesn't make it less of an secret law. It simply mean that the secret law can be ignored, and where those with privileged access can gain an market advantage. Either the law makers is in fault here for making part of the law secret, or DIN should loose their copyright to the standard. You can not have laws with open and secret parts, or you creates a law enforced unfair market. If DIN has proprietary ownership of the optional part of the law, DIN can then at their choice exclude companies at will. After all, proprietary ownership means the right to not sell a license to companies of your choice. This is clearly incompatible with a fair and free market. In my view, the law should be rewritten so the standard is not included there. If the market want to make the standard an industry practice, or lawyers want to view it as the defined compliance to the law, then thats fine. That would mean that a competing standard writing body (or lawyer firm) could come up with a new standard, and compete in an fair and free market with the first one. As it is now, no such competition can happen since the standard is written into the actually law as a way to optional be in compliance. Thats an clear unfair advantage, and facilitates antitrust.

DIN is the German ANSI

by thomasz 13y ago

DIN is the German ANSI

Like ANSI, DIN is not a branch of government, but a self-regulated non-profit institute (an e.V.) Their FAQ describes their relationship to the government: > What is the role of the government or the European Commission in standardization? > Standardization is a form of economic self-regulation, relieving the state of the responsibility for developing detailed technical specifications while ensuring that a standard reflects the state of technology. Because the state has an interest in standardization, particularly in the occupational safety and health sectors, it funds DIN projects in sectors which are in the public interest. http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=55343&menurubricid=55343&level=tpl-rubrik&menuid=47566&languageid=en&cmsareaid=47566#Role%20of%20government http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=55343&menurubricid=55343&leve...

belorn 13y ago
So let me see if I understand this right. The EU has created several safety laws that each countries must follow. The laws then in turn reference proprietary written standards by DIN, which people need to buy in order to actually follow and understand the law. Is that correct?
- chalst 13y ago
  I don't know about ANSI, but the IEEE is a US non-profit standards body, and you need to buy its standards to claim compliance with them. This, and fees for testing products, is generally how non-governmental standards institutes fund themselves.
  - varjag 13y ago
    You also have to pay for ANSI/NIST standard texts, ITU, ISO standards, and for EU industrial standard texts. It's nothing out of ordinary. EDIT: I see ITU has made their standards free of charge since 2007.
- ThePhysicist 13y ago
  Yes, and no. DIN basically takes European and international norms and translates them so that they conform to the German law and can thus be used in Germany. This is not just a matter of simple translation but of adaptation since all documents issued by the European Union are published in all languages of the member states anyway. Companies could of course just take the European norms and implement them by themselves, but since adapting these norms to German law is complicated they choose to buy a certified DIN report which provides them legal security. Now you can of course argue if this service should be provided for free or not. On their website, DIN points out a few reasons why they charge money for their reports: http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=197041&menurubricid=197041&level=tpl-rubrik&menuid=47562&languageid=en&cmsareaid=47562 http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=197041&menurubricid=197041&le... So basically it's not Germany that "threatens" the guy which published these norms, but a company suing an individual for publishing copyrighted work.
  - belorn 13y ago
    Is the standard referencing the law, or the law referencing the standard? The distinction between those two are quite important.
    - Tomte 13y ago
      The law references the standard(s), but only as optional. See the link to the English translation of the Product Safety Act that I posted in another comment. Article 4 is relevant.
      - belorn 13y ago
        Thanks, but the more I read about this, the more I start to dislike it. Just because its optional doesn't make it less of an secret law. It simply mean that the secret law can be ignored, and where those with privileged access can gain an market advantage. Either the law makers is in fault here for making part of the law secret, or DIN should loose their copyright to the standard. You can not have laws with open and secret parts, or you creates a law enforced unfair market. If DIN has proprietary ownership of the optional part of the law, DIN can then at their choice exclude companies at will. After all, proprietary ownership means the right to not sell a license to companies of your choice. This is clearly incompatible with a fair and free market. In my view, the law should be rewritten so the standard is not included there. If the market want to make the standard an industry practice, or lawyers want to view it as the defined compliance to the law, then thats fine. That would mean that a competing standard writing body (or lawyer firm) could come up with a new standard, and compete in an fair and free market with the first one. As it is now, no such competition can happen since the standard is written into the actually law as a way to optional be in compliance. Thats an clear unfair advantage, and facilitates antitrust.