begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> EU regulator: Let consumers pick telecom standards
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| The European Union's telecommunications watchdog has called for
>| regulators to take a backseat in setting standards--and allow
>| consumers to take the lead by picking the platform that offers
>| the services they want.
> `----
>
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6140471.html
These two pieces from the article are /very/ interesting
"I think it should be left to businesses to find the business
models that attract consumers to opt for the services they
like (most)," she added. "The GSM (Global System for Mobile
Communications) standard was a landmark decision...today, the
picture is more complex. For governments to make a viable case
for choosing any standard is much more difficult."
This is an interesting statement, because as far as I know, this is more
or less what has happened, unless she's considering the PTTs which still
have a strong government ownership?
According to the commissioner, though, regulators still have
their part to play in standards adoption, including implementing
a legal system that prevents so-called patent ambushes.
This is a surprising but very welcome remark. The pressure put on the
ITU, ETSI and other bodies in the 1980s and 1990s, predominantly by the US
Government and companies, to allow the standardisation of patented works,
was the worst kind of economic imperialism. This has been compounded by
two key decisions in the US, firstly to grant software patents, whilst
ignoring the perfectly suitable copyright protection already available
for software works, and secondly, to make the USPTO a profit-centre, thus
rewarding USPTO managers for issuing patents, no matter how dumb they are.
To a great extent, it's quite clear that these actions are a direct
result of the US trying to halt or at least slow the decline of its
worldwide power and influence, however, history shows that such actions
are rarely effective, and frequently backfire. In this case, the
backfire is likely to be the negative impact on the US economy due to
the unavailability of some kinds of technology, and the stifling of US
companies in their ability to compete overseas. An interesting example
of the former is the power of Qualcomm and its patents; the US is one
of the few major geographies which doesn't use the GSM standard, thus,
is isolated in mobile technology, and completely missed the SMS
revolution which so hugely impacted the EU and Asia. Even Canada began
the rollout of SMS networks some years ago (look at Rogers Wireless).
In terms of the impact on US companies' activities overseas, one only
has to look at Microsoft's problems to recognise that a business model
overly reliant on taking legal action against one's own customers will,
in the long run, cause the customers to consider alternatives where
legal threats are not used against them by their suppliers.
A quick peak at history will also show that in the past, those
countries, such as the US and Switzerland, which chose to ignore the
patent system in order to copy mainly British, French and German
technologies get substantially more rapid growth than those which do
not; I think it unlikely that either India or China will be especially
sympathetic to the US here, considering much of its own development was
based on the copying of ideas from elsewhere without appropriate
recompense.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Honk if you hate bumper stickers that say "Honk if ..."
|
|
