Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: EMC compliance question
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:56:18 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vegqj4$nscc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <67070ba9$1$1783$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <ve9e5c$39rmc$1@dont-email.me> <dsfggj1a5m9mise9781qmh1roqv3pb68jr@4ax.com>
 <vebshs$3p3c0$1@dont-email.me> <m9uigjh5mh3rbiqkkpr660vnmtanf5a15f@4ax.com>
 <KSrOO.413184$hKDf.331455@fx07.ams4> <veemp9$9rsj$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:56:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fc20591169459ab9346dc13a9cc044f6";
	logging-data="782732"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19NLJR/5dvoE53Xcugipo1cFswVnvCDZpw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FF7q+Y+Zjdo59jwqtgbhBmCsWwc=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241013-2, 13/10/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <veemp9$9rsj$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4719

On 13/10/2024 7:38 am, Don Y wrote:
> On 10/12/2024 3:06 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>> The standards bodies are parasites on society, as bad as the worst 
>> academic publishers.
> 
> To be fair, one typically has a financial interest (e.g., product
> development) that merits access to a "Standard".  And, an organization
> really only needs *one* copy thereof.
> 
> What I don't fathom is why academics would want to (tolerate) insert
> some "impediment" to access for their publications who adds no real
> value.  There, one would think you would want as widespread distribution
> as possible (as "publication" is a metric for academics; if no one
> is *consuming* your research, what value that?).  I.e., one could
> expect many individuals at a single organization to have copies of
> specific papers without even being aware of their presence in other
> cubicles.
> 
>> The standards committees are composed of volunteers, often working for 
>> universities or companies who pay their salaries, but never paid by 
>> the standards body for their free labour. Then the standards are 
>> copyrighted and sold at a huge profit, often to the same organisations 
>> whose experts contributed all of the value incorporated in the 
>> standards. The standards bodies are generally non-profit 
>> organisations, and they ensure this non-profit characteristic by 
>> increasing the pay of their directors until they run out of profit.
> 
> In the days of dead tree publication, one could understand the need
> for someone to undertake this activity.  Just typesetting a document
> can be a significant task.

Peer-reviewed publication depends of the editors of the journal finding 
reviewers (who don't get paid for the work, but do get early access to a 
random sample of the literature that might interest them).

> But, given the prevalence of DTP tools and the ease of self-publishing,
> this activity seems to be obsolescent -- in THAT form.

Nobody wants to published papers in journals that don't get read, and 
the journals that have good reputations, so do get read, get the pick of 
the papers.

>> The standards become referenced in laws, and thereby have the force of 
>> law, but are copyrighted by a private entity, and not even the 
>> politicians writing the laws incorporating these standards can read 
>> them without paying.
>>
>> Do not ever volunteer your time to work on a proprietary standard.
>>
>> Here is a nice video by Carl Malamud (of https://public.resource.org/ ):
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tOJdGaMvVw
>>
>> He had a legal victory: There has been some European court decision 
>> that in future they will have to allow public access to standards 
>> written into law:
>>
>> https://www.heise.de/news/EuGH-Entscheid-Europaeische-Normen-muessen-gratis-zugaenglich-sein-9646757.html
> 
> That doesn't really help folks who are *not* in Europe.

Actually, it does.

> And, legislation with similar goals has often been subverted, stateside.
> The folks victimized don't seem to have a loud enough voice to make
> a difference.  (witness the right-to-repair movement).

The US political system is run on the basis that the people who own the 
country, run the country. More modern political systems do better, 
although not all that wonderfully well.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney