-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
JoaquÃn Almunia Vice President of the European Commission responsible for competition policy Competition in Digital Media and the Internet UCL Jevons Lecture London, 7 July 2010
,----[ Quote ]
| Standards and Protocols
|
| When it comes to standards some minimum
| requirements must be met to ensure that
| the positive effects of standardisation
| can fully materialise. We have identified
| these requirements in the Commissionâs
| draft guidelines on horizontal agreements
| which include an extensive discussion of
| standardisation.
|
| The starting point is transparency: if
| technology is to be incorporated into a
| standard, then participants that own
| intellectual property that covers that
| technology should disclose their
| ownership. Without transparency, efficient
| decisions cannot be made.
|
| For a standard to serve its purpose there
| should be a commitment to license on fair,
| reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
| If so called âFRAND commitmentsâ have been
| given, they should be adhered to.
| Moreover, those standardisation bodies
| that require full disclosure of the
| proposed terms and conditions of licensing
| can be assured that they will not infringe
| EU competition law by doing so.
`----
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/365&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
EU seeks to break patent translation deadlock
,----[ Quote ]
| Jonathan Zuck, President of the
| Association for Competitive Technology
| (ACT), said the proposal is a "crucial
| milestone which can revitalize the EU
| patent dossier".
|
| "Until now, language discussions have
| hindered the completion of this long
| awaited step. Political considerations on
| linguistic issues should not distract us
| from realising the full potential of
| innovation in Europe. Innovative small and
| medium size enterprises should be able to
| compete and fully develop their business.
| It is high time we eliminated unnecessary
| barriers and make the single patent system
| a reality once and for all," he said.
|
| He said he hoped the Belgian Presidency
| would deliver a deal on a single EU patent
| system during its six-month tenure.
`----
http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/eu-seeks-break-patent-translation-deadlock-news-495842
Is there really an Open Source âTea Party Movementâ?
,----[ Quote ]
| To the credit of Florian Mueller, heâs
| been involved in the fight against
| software patents for over 10 years. He
| also seems to have worked for the Real
| Madrid Football Club before landing back
| in Brussels to defend the poor millionaire
| Monty Widenius against Oracle. Now Florian
| is all about IBM and claims that IBM
| essentially shot down the debate on
| software patents at the Supreme Court by
| addressing a âFriend of the Court Briefâ
| in which IBM was essentially explaining
| the Court should not outlaw software
| patents right away, as these were valuable
| intangible assets that could badly hurt US
| companies. Florian Mueller has also been
| behind the infamous âOpen Mainframeâ
| initiative, targeted again at IBM and
| involving himself in an existing anti-
| trust case.
|
| I disagree with Dana Blankenhorn on
| several points. First, Florian Mueller is
| by no means a leader of the Free & Open
| Source movement. Florian had his shot
| several years ago when the debate on
| software patents in Europe emerged and was
| a defining moment for the European
| community of digital rights and innovation
| proponents. It was in a sense a ârite of
| passageâ for many. Since that time, some
| went their own way, some others maintained
| the flame and vigilance that is tested
| again these days. Florian was part of the
| former group. He went to work for the Real
| Madrid Football Club, and we somehow lost
| his track. Sometimes after the OOXML
| standardization odyssey, Florian took
| several planes to Brussels. He went to see
| many people, including many of my own
| personal friends and colleagues. His big
| project was to crush IBM, and Oracle, and
| anyone who was benefiting from software
| patents. Well, not exactly anyone:
| Microsoft was thoroughly avoided each
| time, sliding through the raindrops, but
| leaving everyone with an odd taste in the
| mouth. Soon enough, Florianâs campaigns,
| backs and forths appeared to many as they
| have always been since his come-back: an
| over-inflated bag of wind.
|
| [...]
|
| In this sense, Florian Mueller has been
| rattling his saber for almost a year now,
| launching âfatwasâ and anathemas on
| selected vendors (IBM and to a lesser
| extent, Oracle) while refusing to address
| the very big elephant in the room:
| Microsoft. Now this is not a rant against
| Microsoft Iâm engaging into, but truth be
| told, Ballmer must have a crack at
| watching its competitors diving into
| various anti-trust cases in which theyâre
| involved. And he sure must be very
| grateful to Florian Mueller, although
| Florianâs actual impact is very much
| limited to his own buzz: There is a
| reality distortion field that seems to be
| on around Florianâs weblog. It does not go
| beyond it. Florian has no troops, no
| clout, no beef, no legitimacy, no
| credibility among the Free & Open Source
| Software community.
|
| [...]
|
| Make no mistake though: we all stand
| against software patents. But Florian
| Muellerâs tactic is strange, extremely
| partial, and leaves some big questions
| unanswered: Who does benefit from an anti-
| IBM campaign? Who does benefit from Oracle
| not merging with a dying Sun? Who does
| benefit if everybody thinks Google
| infringes your privacy?
`----
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2010/07/06/is-there-really-an-open-source-tea-party-movement/
Recent:
Dedication to Open Source and Open Standards Threatened in Leaked EU EIF Document
,----[ Quote ]
| The Foundation for a Free Information
| Infrastructure offers ten recommendations
| for improving the EIF version 2 and
| preserving "a strong definition of 'open
| standards and specifications' in a way that
| patent cartels do not qualify for the gold
| standard."
|
| These ten recommendations are:
|
| 1. Align the EIF 2.0 with the new General
| Principles from the Interoperability
| Solutions for European Public
| Administrations (ISA) document, which
| calls for technological neutrality and
| adaptability, openness, reusability,
| privacy and personal protection of data
| and security.
| 2. Improve interoperability terminology
| to once again align with the ISA's
| definition rather than the new watered
| down one.
| 3. Market Order and public constituency
| by creating better functioning markets
| with increased interoperability.
| 4. Deletion of Chapter 3 and its empty
| talk.
| 5. Administrative principles such as not
| tasking public administration with
| lobbying for political support of
| interoperability efforts.
| 6. Avoid capture and dilution of interest
| with weak phrases and definitions.
| 7. Adjust to public administrative needs.
| 8. Open standards, not open concepts, by
| reinstating the proper definition of open
| standards.
| 9. Open assessment and continuum to allow
| government bodies to assess where an
| offering falls on the "openness
| continuum".
| 10. Problem-oriented approach by focusing
| on identifying and solving
| interoperability problems.
|
| Other Organizations Speak Out
|
| Other organizations have also expressed
| their strong concerns, such as the OW2
| Consortium and the Open Source Software
| Thematic Group.
`----
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-cms/dedication-to-open-source-and-open-standards-threatened-in-leaked-eu-eif-document-006325.php
Eurocrats face proprietary FUD attack
,----[ Quote ]
| A European Commission effort to move the continent toward open standards is
| being threatened by Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) from a group favoring
| proprietary solutions.
|
| [...]
|
| Clear out the rhetoric and Zuck is saying that monopolies created by patents,
| and only such monopolies, allow technology to move forward, and that a regime
| that truly demands open standards is an attempt to âimpose one business model
| over another.â
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4490
Complaints against EU open source agenda may overlook a policy breakthrough
,----[ Quote ]
| A European Commission policy review white paper released last week (PDF
| available here) was brought to light in the US this week by virtue of a
| comment from its most vocal opposition. Yesterday, press sources including
| IDG's Paul Meller quoted the Association for Competitive Technology's
| Jonathan Zuck as taking sides -- not surprisingly -- against the white paper,
| accusing the EC of bias in favor of open source software producers over
| commercial manufacturers.
|
| "We remain concerned that the policy framework suggested in the white paper
| seems to favor open source software over proprietary software to achieve more
| interoperability," reads another citation of Zuck's statement. Ironically,
| Zuck's ACT Web site from which the statement originated appeared to be the
| victim of a crash in its open source asset management system this morning, so
| only second-hand citations of Zuck were available today.
`----
http://www.betanews.com/article/Complaints-against-EU-open-source-agenda-may-overlook-a-policy-breakthrough/1246985525
Peeping Larry
,----[ Quote ]
| That wasn't enough for Ellison. Oracle retained Washington-based
| Investigative Group International to probe the pro-Microsoft spinners in the
| antitrust battle. I.G.I. hit pay dirt. Oracle says that in the trash of the
| Independent Institute--which took out pro-Microsoft ads signed by leading
| academics--investigators found evidence that Microsoft had given the group
| more than $200,000. (The Independent Institute insists its positions have
| been unaffected by any support from Microsoft.)
`----
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,49039,00.html
Oracle-MS flap -- how it happened
,----[ Quote ]
| Oracle next turned its sights on the Microsoft-backed Association for
| Competitive Technology, which in January announced it would file a
| friend-of-the-court brief on Microsoft's behalf, using a team of prestigious
| former government lawyers. Oracle's Washington team viewed the move as
| outrageous, given the probability that the brief would be paid for with money
| from Microsoft itself. In April, Oracle told IGI to look into ACT.
|
| Soon yet another player surfaced: the National Taxpayers Union. It had long
| been publicly criticizing a suit against Microsoft by state attorneys general
| as "government-led larceny of Microsoft's intellectual property." In mid-May,
| as the group renewed its attacks on the government, Oracle again suspected
| the hidden hand of its software foe. Once again, it dispatched IGI, which
| promptly went trash-hunting. IGI discovered that the National Taxpayers Union
| had received more than $200,000 from Microsoft. That information surfaced in
| The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post in May.
|
| [...]
|
| It was trash-hunting at ACT, however, that ultimately brought Oracle's
| entanglement to light. For that, Oracle can thank Robert M. Walters and a
| conscientious cleaning crew.
|
| In May, Walters, an amiable former journalist who was IGI's chief
| anti-Microsoft detective, leased an office near ACT's Washington offices. He
| used his own name but identified himself as an official of "Upstream
| Technologies."
|
| [...]
|
| Walters also paid $4,445 to lease the office space near ACT using a check
| drawn on his personal bank account, according to records obtained by the
| Journal. And he used the telephone in the Upstream office to call his home
| and his wife at her office. Those calls later were easily traced because they
| were routed through the building's computerized phone system. Together, these
| steps bore the mark of a detective who appeared not particularly worried
| about covering his true identity. In June of 1999, Washington lobbyists for
| software giant Oracle Corp. grew dismayed by the skill with which Oracle's
| bitterest rival, Microsoft Corp., seemed to be manipulating public opinion.
| As Microsoft faced the antitrust fight of its life, a group called the
| Independent Institute bought full-page newspaper ads citing 240 academics who
| criticized the government's antitrust attack on Microsoft.
|
| [...]
|
| It wasn't long before IGI produced results: Internal documents showing that
| Microsoft had paid Independent Institute, based in Oakland, Calif., $153,000.
| Independent Institute President David Theroux suspects that information was
| stolen. People familiar with the operation, however, intimate that it was
| obtained by rifling through trash, a practice that isn't illegal. IGI
| Chairman Terry Lenzner said Wednesday that his firm "abides by a rigorous
| code of ethics and conducts all of its investigations in a lawful manner,"
| and that its work for Oracle "was conducted in strict accordance with these
| standards."
`----
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-96149.html
EU open-source document reflects Microsoft influence
,----[ Quote ]
| One such editor is Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for
| Competitive Technology, a lobbying organization with strong ties to
| Microsoft. There is nothing wrong with Microsoft making its voice heard in
| the software strategy development process, as it stands to gain or lose much
| in the process, but it does make for some interesting political gamesmanship
| in the document.
|
| While the draft doesn't make it obvious who is saying what, there are
| numerous instances where editors have tried to soften the appeal of open
| source or downplay its significance, repeatedly trying to insist that open
| source not be called out as more significant than proprietary software.
`----
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10193433-16.html
How to Hijack an EU Open Source Strategy Paper
,----[ Quote ]
| Others as in Microsoft and mates.
|
| All-in-all, the modifications to the document provide a fascinating insight
| into how lobbyists operate in their attempt to neuter threats to their
| constituencies through the shameless evisceration and outright inversion of
| content. Fortunately, when the final strategy document comes out, we will be
| able to pinpoint exactly where ACT's agenda has been inserted. Of course,
| before then we need to make the above document as widely known as possible,
| so that the relevant people at the European Union are aware of what's going
| on, and maybe even take action to prevent this gross distortion of the
| paper's purpose.
|
| In addition, we must ensure that Wikileaks can continue to provide its
| invaluable service. The world of openness â including open source - would be
| the poorer without it. To that end, we need to support its current call for
| funds to help it carry on its work, and I urge you to make a donation,
| however modest.
`----
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/how-hijack-eu-open-source-strategy-paper
European Commission OSS Strategy Draft, Mar 2009
,----[ Quote ]
| This file is an edited version of the EU OSS Strategy draft with the input of
| Jonathan Zuck, President of the Association for Competitive Technology, an
| organisation that has strong ties with Microsoft[1]
|
| The file is a draft for an expert panel formed by the European Commission.
| This panel is divided into workgroup (IPR, Open Source, digital life, etc.)
| ACT and Comptia have been infiltrating every workgroup, even the one on Open
| Source (WG 7). They are doing the best they can to drown any initiative that
| would not only promote OSS in Europe but also that could help Europe create a
| sucessful European software sector.
|
| The audience for this document could be journalists who would be interested
| in getting to know more how lobbies of all kind influence the European
| institutions. Here it is perhaps even more stringent as ACT is clearly an US
| organization with ties to Microsoft. Verifications might not be easy as this
| is an internal draft. The best contact might be commission personnel:
| Lars.PEDERSEN@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; Michel.Lacroix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| It has been leaked as it is important to have the public know how actual
| policy making is being influenced by lobbies that are precisely under the
| legal scrutiny of the European Commission. The urgency of the publication of
| this document is real in the sense that outside pressure would foce the
| Commission to "clean the committees" or at least give a lesser credit to the
| work of this workgroup.
`----
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/European_Commission_OSS_Strategy_Draft%2C_Mar_2009
Microsoft gains familiar ally in IE antitrust battle in Europe
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft Corp. gained a familiar ally in its latest antitrust battle with
| the European Commission today when the Association for Competitive Technology
| (ACT) was accepted as an interested third party in the case.
|
| [...]
|
| Washington-based ACT, whose members include Microsoft, Oracle, eBay and
| dozens of smaller companies, stood by Microsoft in an earlier European
| antitrust case that resulted in the software vendor being found guilty of
| monopoly abuse in 2004. The group made passionate arguments in favor of
| Microsoft during hearings held by the EC and the appeals process at the
| European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg.
`----
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9131834
ACT backs Microsoft in Brussels' IE legal spat
,----[ Quote ]
| The Association for Competitive Technology has been accepted as an interested
| third party in the case.
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/21/act_supports_ie_eu_case/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkw3I7IACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4+FgCfSVoFny1XJ5firq01RjH1eyEl
qiIAn3SDfBr0KSb1AFbE5qBMAgz80FXx
=nMWm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
