Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

January 12, 2016

Law as Pay-to-Play – ASTM International vs. Public.Resource.org, Inc.

Filed under: Government,Intellectual Property (IP),Law — Patrick Durusau @ 8:10 pm

Carl Malamud has been hitting Twitter hard today as he posts links to new materials in ASTM International vs. Public.Resource.org, Inc. (case docket).

The crux of the case is whether a legal authority, like the United States, can pass a law that requires citizens to buy materials from private organizations, in order to know what the law says.

That is a law will cite a standard, say by ASTM, and you are bound by the terms of that law, which aren’t clear unless you have a copy of a standard from ASTM. ASTM will be more than happy to sell you a copy.

It’s interesting that ASTM, which has reasonable membership fees of $75 a year, would be the lead plaintiff in this case.

There are technical committees associated with ANSI that have membership fees of $1,200 or more per year. And that is the lowest membership category.

I deeply enjoyed Carl’s tweet that described the ANSI amicus brief as “the sky is falling.”

No doubt from ANSI’s perspective, if Public.Resource.org, Inc. prevails, which it should under any sensible notice of the law reasoning, the sky will be falling.

ANSI and its kin profit by creating a closed club of well-heeled vendors who can pay for early access and participate in development of standards.

You have heard the term “white privilege?” In the briefs for ASTM and its friends, you will realize how deeply entrenched “corporate privilege” is in the United States. The ANSI brief is basically “this is how we do it and it works for us, go away.” No sense of other at all.

There is a running implication that standards organizations (SDOs) have to sell copies of standards to support standards activity. At least on a quick skim, I haven’t seen any documentation on that point. In fact, the W3C, which makes a large number of standards, seems to do ok giving standards away for free.

I can’t help but wonder how the presiding judge will react should a data leak from one of the plaintiffs prove that the “sale of standards” is entirely specious from a financial perspective. That is membership, the “pay-to-play,” is really the deciding factor.

That doesn’t strengthen or weaken the public notice of the law but I do think it is a good indication of the character of the plaintiffs and the lengths they are willing to go to preserve corporate privilege.

In case you are still guessing, I’m on the side of Public.Resource.org.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress