This process is slightly different from what we are doing since the National
Electrical Code is adopted in many states as their building code. So this
particular body was in effect setting law. I don't know why the author of
the piece would imagine that such a body would not be immune from restraint
of trade issues when opperating in this way, the fact that the regulations
have legal force would make it even more important that the process be
objective.
I don't think it has a major impact on what we do because the Internet world
in particular and the computing world in general operates far more
enlightened IPR policies than practically every other standards area. The
building codes frequently mandate the use of patented technology, the GPF
sockets in your kitchen and bathroom are covered by current patents and use
is mandated by law. The current spats over Blu-ray are all about patent
licenses and terms.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Scott
Kitterman
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:11 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] New US Law On Anti-Trust And Standards Bodies
http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/article/CA453654.html
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID. To unsubscribe, change
your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf->
discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com