Jack Kessler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Robbin Murphy's postings about the GIF controversy -- whether
> Compuserve and Unisys should be allowed to charge for it -- make me
> wonder if some sort of law defining illegal online marketing practices,
> similar to or a stretched version of Robinson - Patman, might not be
> needed?
 
The model I've seen developing on the net is to offer an early version
(Netscape) or a pared-down version (BBEdit-Lite, Eudora) for free to
grow a market for the commercial version. From what law I can find
Unisys is within their rights to claim ownership of the GIF algorithm
even if they have given it away free for the past seven years. Since
the company is going down the tubes it's probably a smart business
move. Whether it's ethical is another matter. Compu$erve seems to be
caught in the middle though their contractural rights to GIF
compression may be to their benefit in the future when Microsoft
launches their online service: they can simply deny Microsoft
the right to use what has become an online standard.
 
I would like to remind everyone that the response to this issue on
the net is a good model to keep in mind as we face cuts or
oblivion from the new congress to the NEA and other cultural
programs. Didn't we get museums included in the NII agenda last
year through postings?
 
Robbin Murphy
[log in to unmask]