Brian: I think that registration of acronyms will become increasingly critical as we do more and more over the web, and therefore I support the registration of important names we use. The critical one is "CIF" and I think that the "STAR File" already has a level of protection from the IUCr patent... but perhaps it needs more. It would help me if you could spell out the protection and approx costs related to getting Trade and Service Marks. I also see the acronyms "DDL" and "CBF" as important but I worry in both cases what effect their registration might have on their develop- ment. If it can be made to act as stimulus (with possible IUCr incentives for innovation) then this would be positive, if it is going to inhibit individuals from working on new concepts in these areas then I oppose it. I think the dictionary names "mmCIF, etc." are of lesser importance and are less likely to be taken over by others. But if we can get them registered in a bulk deal then add "coreCIF" and lets get them done. Theres quite a bit more that can be said on the registration of "DDL" but I don't want to go into that at the moment. Suffice it to say that there is a distinctly grey area at the moment between "development effort" and "official adoption" of the outcomes... and I believe that this needs to clarified so as to encourage future projects of this sort. COMCIFS should be active in stimulating (via low-level seed funding) incentives in these areas with the view to meeting specific application needs. I guess the "CIF editor" is a good case in point... but so is the next generation of DDL's. Cheers, Syd. ------ email@example.com ,-_|\ Professor Sydney R. Hall / \ Director, Crystallography Centre Fx: 61(8)9380 1118 --> *_,-._/ Deputy Executive Dean of Science Ph: 61(8)9380 2725 v University of Western Australia www.crystal.uwa.edu.au Nedlands 6907, AUSTRALIA.
Copyright © International Union of CrystallographyIUCr Webmaster