On wednesday February 23, Talkstandards.com held an online open forum to discuss a number of issues related to recent EU policy developments, building upon our December 22nd mini-event “European Interoperability Strategy“. Two communications released late last year by the European Commission related to e-Government and standardization – the European Interoperability Framework version 2 and updated Guidelines for the assessment of horizontal cooperation agreements – were central to the discussion, particularly the inclusion of FRAND licensing within the EIF specification of a open standard.
The events featured articles are briefly summarized below, including links, and the event page can be found here: www.talkstandards.com/eu-standardization-from-formalism-to-pragmatism/
Steve Mutkoski -
Standardization, Government Policy and the “Consumerization of IT”
Steve Mutkoski draws a parallel between internally facing eGovernment standardization strategies and the “consumerization of IT” faced by enterprise CTOs in the early 2000. The lesson being that Government interoperability policies need to have both the pragmatism and flexibility to ensure that they continue to evolve and serve the citizen as both customer and consumer by reflecting the technologies that citizens want to use. “If citizen centric eGovernment is to have any meaning, government interoperability policy itself has to put the citizen into the center of the equation.”
Susannah Sheppard -
Shortlines: The new European Interoperability Framework
www.talkstandards.com/shortlines-the-new-european-interoperability-framework
Co-authored by Susannah Sheppard and Richard Kemp, the authors discuss a number of issues and implications of FRAND licensing within the EIF v2 which rejects the assertion that ‘open’ means royalty free in its contextual definition of the meaning of ‘open specification’. In fitting with the general principles of public procurement law and policy, the wording accommodates both proprietary and open source software implementations, to not exclude or discriminate against large sectors of potential suppliers. This opens up competition from proprietary providers as well as permitting any open source solution and is not incompatible with ‘open’ standards in the ICT domain then falls in line with EU law in other fields such as EU competition law.
Michele Herman -
FRAND versus Royalty-Free
www.talkstandards.com/frand-versus-royalty-free
Michele Herman describes the shift of the EIFv2 wording from “a royalty-free basis” to “FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis” as recognition of the infeasibility of widespread practical application of a royalty-free mandate. Concerns have long been raised that an open source implementation of a standard is only possible if the standard is developed under a royalty free patent policy despite abundant evidence in the marketplace to the contrary. The EIFv2 clarifies that both FRAND and royalty free patent policies are sufficiently “open.”
Meir Pugatch -
A Formal Path Towards Interoperability and Standardisation
www.talkstandards.com/a-formal-path-towards-interoperability-and-standardisation
In many ways, the recent EU white papers on e-Government and horizontal cooperation agreements establish frameworks for standard setting that are already practiced in many cases, including FRAND licensing. Meir Pugatch questions whether it is necessary for policymakers to mandate a formal path towards interoperability and standardisation? Policymakers should take a balanced, collaborative approach toward building the most competitive and dynamic ICT marketplace possible.
George Barker -
EIFv2: From Objectives to Action
www.talkstandards.com/eifv2-from-objectives-to-action
Rather than seamless interoperability, the objectives of the EIF boil down to optimal interoperability within a framework of open and competitive markets. Yet the emphasis placed on existing standards in procurement policies and the active involvement by EU Governments in standards bodies are likely to have adverse efficiency effects. By using procurement powers to limit competition between standards, and standards bodies they will limit the extent of choice, competitive pressures and incentives for innovation and may entail the effective formation of a buyer-cartel, and abuse of market power by EU Governments.
James Bryce Clark -
Encouraging Openness and Innovation
www.talkstandards.com/encouraging-openness-and-innovation
It’s not a bad thing to be cautious in designing technology policy, but an overly formal, hierarchical regime for standardization has not served European needs well. A smart Information Society requires smart information policy and public administrations to take a much more thoughtful, deliberate and facilitative role in leading information ecologies, and in understanding and continually improving their own influence on information transactions.
George Willingmyre -
European Codes and Guidelines for Standards Processes in a Bilateral and International Context
In this contribution, George Willingmyre compares the EU’s recently published EIFv2 and updated Horizontal Guidelines to similar codes and guidelines for standards developers. The comparison is made with the American ‘OMB A-119’, for a US perspective, and the WTO’s ‘Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards’, for an international perspective, and made in 4 key area. Namely:
• Membership and access to development
• Public Review
• Availability of standards in development and once published on reasonable terms
• Intellectual property available on a non-discriminatory, royalty-free or reasonable royalty basis to all interested parties (RAND)
Ajit Jaokar -
A More Pragmatic Approach to IPR
www.talkstandards.com/a-more-pragmatic-approach-to-ipr
The current EU document (EIF v2) attempts the complex task of defining an ‘Open standards’ by setting out qualifying criteria. The primary issue is upon which the criteria touch is FRAND and to the use of IPR in standards. Ajit Jaokar comments that as we get into a more complex regime of interplay between devices and software, the IPR issue will be a common theme of discussion in standards. But has the emphasis truly shifted from ‘questioning IPR inclusion’ to ‘accepting IPR transparency’?
