Andy Millar said:

Seems like a bit of an administrative nightmare as there will be some standards which must be free and other, quite similar ones, which need not be, just depending whether they have been identified as harmonised or not. Also, how far down the tree does this go - taking EMC for example, the harmonised standards call up sub-standards which define the test process, which in turn sometimes call up sub-sub-standards...I can see the legal wrangling will have only just started as to how many of these are legally mandated and therefore should be free.

I fully agree with Mike:

mapj1 said:

probably with more impact than the folk who have done it yet realise

Any of us who've been involved in standards production and maintenance know how expensive (time consuming) it is. Not to say that this is a right or wrong decision, but the consequences of how many standards it will actually affect, and how those standards then get paid for, is interesting.

Standards will still be required, and will still be published, even if only electronically. They will need to be version-controlled, etc. etc.... so some of those whose income is paid for out of subscriptions for and sales of standards will still be necessary.

The cost of producing standards, even if participants are funded by the industry, or provide their time for free, is not insubstantial.

Therefore, the bigger question is perhaps how is standards production to be funded, if there is no revenue from their publication?

At the end of the day, the consumer pays when they purchase a product or service, as standards are part of the operating costs or expenses of an organization providing the product or service.

In the alternative proposed model, it's likely that the public will pay through taxes. The downside of that being, whether or not you actually use the product or service will be irrelevant, you will pay for the standards.

Just think ... instead of the cost of the standard for "count the money in my £1B+ bank account" machine being paid for by only those who buy such machines, it will be paid for by all of ... US !

Sergio Fernandez said:

See URL below.  Might be worth a read.

eurogip.fr/.../

Makes me wonder whether such an approach is really beneficial to us all?

Andy Millar said:

On a side topic, taking the statement in that link "Relying in particular on the principles of the rule of law and of free access to the law" so does this mean that access to legal advice (solicitors / barristers) should also be free?

I like that question, but I somehow don't see that flying?

Andy Millar said:

And indeed technical expert witnesses?

I'm not following that somehow. Technical expert witnesses wouldn't be providing an opinion on the law, or legal matters, but on a technical matter as directed by the instructing solicitor (usually as directed by the Judge)?

Hi Graham,

My point was just that the need for an expert witness (as you say, to provide technical opinion) is another potential cost in such cases.

gkenyon said:

I somehow don't see that flying?

No I don't either.

Thanks, Andy 

Hi Graham,

My point was just that the need for an expert witness (as you say, to provide technical opinion) is another potential cost in such cases.

gkenyon said:

I somehow don't see that flying?

No I don't either.

Thanks, Andy