Re: Moving goalposts, estoppel and antitrust law. (derives from Re: Chess symbols, ZWJ, Opentype and holly type ornaments.)

Date: Fri Jun 21 2002 - 10:46:57 EDT

On 06/21/2002 04:38:08 AM "William Overington" wrote:

>I feel that any attempt to delete the word published from the standard
>need to be investigated for possible antitrust law violation.

You are strongly overreacting. How can a consortium with unrestricted
membership and with a current membership that is divers, coming from
different sectors (some IT industry, some government, some academic, some
non-profit) and that has sole ownership of it's own standard possibly be
accused of antitrust law violation?

> As the
>standards need to get past ISO and that has, I think, on it delegations
>exercising powers delegated by national governments, then European Union
>Antitrust Law may well protect at least those of us within the European
>Union against such goalpost moving.

It appears to me that the only goalpost moving is in your mind, because,
apparently, you have not grasped the full worldview of the Unicode

>However, that allowance of agreements between
>businesses does not continue if changes are made which start impacting
>other people's opportunities. The word published is in the standard, that
>is the opportunity which has been provided and that has lead to my
>publishing my collections of code points. When people sit around a table
>discuss the possibility of revising the standard, they need to remember
>they are there with certain powers yet certain obligations to the public
>I have exercised the rights granted by the specification and published
>code point assignments.

It seems to me that you are getting yourself into quite a lather over
nothing: you rights in this manner are not about to be restricted.

>The specification says what it says. If it is to be changed for clarity
>that is one thing, yet if a claim of changes for the sake of clarity is
>as a smokescreen for moving the goalposts so as to marginalize
>of individuals because it is inconvenient to big business then that is
>another matter entirely.

(Are you into conspiracy theories, BTW? :-) The Consortium is not just big
business interests. No changes to the standard are made due to hidden,
malicious agendas. Nobody is knowingly being marginalised because of
inconvenience to big businesses. Nobody's right to publish their use of PUA
codepoints is about to be restricted.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 08:57:41 EDT