In October, Talkstandards.com hosted an open forum focused towards issues related to interoperability within European standardization and framed against the backdrop of the current EU activities. In addition to a series of expert keynote contributions (summarized below – please follow the links to access the articles in full) two exclusive interviews were conducted. The event can be found her: www.talkstandards.com/reforming-eu-standardization.

Read More…

All forum discussion will take place on this page!

This event (Thurs October 14th –  3pm GMT / 8am Pacific / 11am Eastern / 5pm CET / 11pm Beijing) is set to discuss mobile payment and transfer services.

Read More…

Address the “holes” in existing standardization:

1. Help define the basic terms.
Without clear definitions, practice will be slipshod.
• What is a standard? It is not practical to transfer anything without a reference. Such ubiquity strongly suggests a “physical” law and mathematical form.
• What is an open standard? Most current descriptions are very biased.
• What is an open standardization process? Is it no IPR? Is RAND sufficient? Free standards documents? Fair representation of all stakeholders? World wide agreement?
“Open standards” is like “democratic government,” it is easy to say but very hard to achieve. First define it. (This task is underway in the EU, but deserves much higher visibility.) Then work to make it more likely.

Read More…

During August, Talkstandards.com hosted an open forum focused towards a number of issues related to the tension between traditional software development business models, FRAND and RAND IPR licensing requirements and the open source community. The event was structured such that two featured articles were posted by Talkstandards regular Stacy Baird (Managing Director of Citrus Co.) and James Bryce Clark (from OASIS). In response to these featured articles, a series of expert contributors were invited to post introductory remarks, upon which the event discussion took place. These articles are summarized below. Please follow the links to access the articles in full.

Read More…

This is the third in a series of articles in which contributor Stacy Baird presents and in-depth analysis of the role of governments in standards setting initiatives which is released on a bi-weekly basis. For previous instalments see here: Part 1, Part 2 – Editor

PART 3: There are Many Ways in Which the IT Develops Standards: The Most Formal Forums for Standard Setting

The IT industry’s capacity to create interoperability standards is well supported by the fact that there is a veritable alphabet soup of formal forums in which IT and related standards are developed and an equally exhaustive use of the alphabet in IT standards nomenclature. The traditional course for standards development is gaining adoption in voluntary consensus forums most commonly described as national standards bodies (NSBs) and standards development organizations (SDOs). I am not going to go into detail as to the formal processes, suffice it to say they have well established consensus processes and most have an extremely long history of success in setting a wide range of industrial standards.

Read More…

In the discussion about appropriate eligibility criteria under a modernized EU standardization policy, it should be considered to what extent the requirements that in many cases already apply under competition law would safeguard the public policy interests at stake.

Read More…

In late 2008, IBM published a new corporate policy, which set guidelines for the company’s behavior in different standards setting organizations. While initially well received, such an attempt to standardize the process of standardization may prove to have negative effects on innovation as no single consensus-view on openness currently exists.

The initiative strives to ultimately increase the level of openness throughout the whole process of standards development and was the result of a six-week discussion in 2008, in which 70 independent experts debated whether modern SSOs manage to keep up with reality (commercial, legal, social etc.). Interestingly, the discussion was not open.
Read More…

The title of this blog is a play on the famous words by the pioneering computer scientist Alan Kay who said that: “The best way to predict the future is to invent it”. In contrast, the ‘Standards for standards’ approach seems to take the view that: The best way to predict the future is to standardize it. In other words, it seems to predict future directions for innovation and preemptively create a standards template for future innovation.

This approach will not work for a number of reasons, but in this post I will focus on two specific issues:
Read More…

The British Standards Institution (BSI) announced in a 2009 press release in a that work had begun to formulate the PAS 98 “Code of practice for the establishment and management of Consortia”, a good practice guide. The code is to be internationally applicable and provide support for consortia in e.g. standards development and interoperability.
Read More…

In January, Talkstandards.com hosted an open forum on SSO Governance and the rules of standardization (Event page here). The benefits of diversity were stressed by Oliver Bell and Ajit Jaokar who pointed to the fact that diversified organizations can fill gaps in the SSO market, which is done by e.g. the Open Web Foundation. No standard developed by any given organization can be said to have any immediate intrinsic value, thus a flexible and agile SSO ecosystem offers means to guarantee that market needs are fulfilled.
Read More…