Very few standards are EVER legislated as compulsory.

Standards body are absolutely NOT the government. Participation is voluntary, and so is compliance.

Standards are best possible alternative to government. "If you like this, great! If don't like it, you are free to do whatever you want."

Which is, uh, why there are so MANY Standards. Or, as we used to say, "one for everybody."

People LIKE Standards. If I want to buy an "802.11ac" wireless access point, I have no clue what 802.11ac is, but I have a good chance it will work with other 802.11ac devices.

Yes, that is the normal rule. Any minimums at all are generally viewed as "not FRAND."

If Standard REQUIRES patented technology to implement, then you are right. You can't copy a patent and then think you can distribute that for free. However, first there are very few Standards that required patented technology -- although that might get you to market faster, or save you some money.

If you think can implement something close to the proposed Standard, in a way that doesn't infringe on a disclosed patent (patents are always disclosed in advance during Standards meetings), then tell the committee. They almost certainly will use your approach over a patented one. Remember it takes about 75% of the members in a Standards committee to approve a draft Standard. And for anything patented, that benefits only one member, and hurts all the rest. They are not stupid.

If are the source of, or user, of GPL property, then the entire FRAND thing is irrelevant for you. If it's open, it's open. Copyrights and patents are granted only the original creators or original works. If the creator wants to make it open, great! The Standards body prefers that, and so do all the users. These two are not in conflict at all. Open source helps patents, because it provides a widely available reference that can trivially be used against anyone who might (purposefully or accidentally) claim any rights to it.

You NEVER pay royalties to a Standards body. You pay them only the owner of the property.

The F in FRAND stands for "fair." FRAND is an approach used for decades by Standards committees that require any participant and any IP involved with a proposed Standard to offer open and uniform patent licensing to everyone (on the planet). This type of licensing is very much NOT the industry practice, where nearly every patent license is otherwise kept a secret and has to be painfully negotiated. There is nothing in FRAND, that I can see, that prohibits open source software or other open IP. In fact, Standards committees -- given a choice -- would far rather build in open IP to closed IP (even FRAND) into a Standard. Can someone knowledgable explain how FRAND in any way harms open source? I have worked extensively on two international Standards bodies, and have two of my own (non-patented) inventions now as ANSI standards.

I filed a patent application for a "smart plug," which overlaps with Sony's idea. I think mine is far better. I hope to have it become an open standard via the RFP process. I posted the application and illustrations where you can download them on my blog: litebulb.org

Non-profits have to file or disclose practically nothing. They have a tiny fraction of the disclosure requirements of public companies. They don't have to disclose how much officers are paid, or revenue sources, or how revenue is spent. They have only to provide a few very broad categories, with lots of wiggle-room even in those categories. They operate under a charter by the state, but there is no adult-supervision, as it were.

Takes effect on the Ides of March, 2012. For new filings after date. Those new filings will start to come out of the Patent Office mill around 2017. Most professionals in the patent field (including me) don't think the new law will change patent practice much.

Like many others in my field, I prefer to call it by its original name, the "Smith-Leahy Act," since it, disappointingly, doesn't provide meaningful improvement in "inventing."

Uh, I forget.

This reminds me of when the Chinese tried to copy a 747. They made it out of wood, and got the center of gravity wrong. Is it a plane?

In the youtube demo, it missed every question.

OK, I concede they are not programmable. They certainly (in my opinion) should be considered computing machines. However, I left off of my "request list" both programmable analog computers and plug programmable punch card equipment. Today's engineers may laugh, but I was able to do some pretty amazing things with both of those types of hardware. You work with the tools you have.

I don't know if these fit his proposed curve or not. I would just like to see the result of thinking about that question.

Not witty at all. Evolution is continuous. For example, one can compare energy costs backwards from nuclear, coal, back to cutting wood. People use energy ... not that hard to make an estimate for slide-rule energy costs. There used to be people who were paid to work 8-hours a day doing calculations by hand (including military ballistic tables). Why would *you* assume that tube-based computers are comparable to an IPad? The fact there there are general "rules" that appear to apply across an extremely wide range of technologies is what makes observations like Moore's Law interesting in the first place. I am an educator. You should not assume that unusual questions are inappropriate. In fact, there was a fascinating TED talk on the cost of light back through the 18th century. Why would observations on the cost of computing not be as valid an area of study as the cost of artificial light?

I would like to see not only the Babbage engine on your curve, but also the abacus and slide rule. Maybe the physical Rod, too, which used to be used in surveying. (Hey, you try calculating property area using pencil, paper, and a deed.)

Anybody who can hack into the communications link (already published -- easy to crack) can tell if you are home or not. Ideal for someone wanting to break in. Also, a working husband can easily track a stay-at-home (maybe) wife's activity.