Specific endorsement of IP-based open standards in European Interoperability Framework would preserve European innovation
Brussels, 7 Oct 2010
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) today recommended the European Commission amend the proposed European Interoperability Framework (EIF) for European Public Services [The EIF is to be adopted on 11 October 2010 as an annex to the Commission’s pending Communication “Towards Interoperable European Services”] to ensure that innovators who own patents and other intellectual property (IP) can participate in the procurement of eGovernment services in Europe.
A letter signed by BSA President and CEO Robert Holleyman was submitted today to Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda; Antonio Tajani, European Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship; Maroš Šefčovič, European Commissioner for Inter-institutional Relations and Administration; Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services; Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European Commissioner for Research and Innovation, and Karel De Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade. The letter called on the Commission to state explicitly that technologies made available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms are to be considered on equal terms with other technologies.
In its current form, EIF could be interpreted to encourage public administrations to extend preferences to “open specifications” when establishing eGovernment services, suggesting that standards must be free of intellectual property rights (IPR). The wording, the letter said, is “ambiguous” as it “could be read to mean that the most innovative European and foreign companies are not welcome to participate in standards processes if they own patents in the relevant technologies and seek compensation for their inventions.”
FRAND licensing policies allow inventors to charge a reasonable fee when their technologies are incorporated into specifications provided the technology is made available on FRAND terms to any person who wants to implement the standard. Such standards are highly flexible and can be implemented in a broad range of solutions, both open source and proprietary. The EU has consistently endorsed FRAND, including in EU policies on IP, standards, competition, and in practice, many of today’s most widely-deployed open specifications incorporate patented innovations that were invented by commercial firms, which are licensed to implementers on FRAND terms, including WiFi, GSM, and MPEG.
Holleyman continued, “We strongly support the EU’s efforts to foster interoperability among eGovernment services and solutions. We encourage [the Commission] to call for an express endorsement of FRAND.” http://64.14.124.167/country/News%20and%20Events/News%20Archives/enGB/2010/enGB-10072010-endorsement.aspx
vs.
EU to push patent-free eGovernment
Published: 11 October 2010 | Updated: 12 October 2010
The European Union is on the cusp of writing public procurement rules which favour patent- and royalty-free technologies, according to software giants who argue that the rules echo Chinese public procurement laws.
Software giants are worried that the pending European Interoperability Framework (EIF) will give technologies that have open specifications an advantage in public sector bids.
These giants want the European Commission to change the EIF “to ensure that innovators who own patents and other intellectual property (IP) can participate in the procurement of eGovernment services in Europe,” according to a statement by the Business Software Alliance (BSA).
The Alliance counts Microsoft, SAP, IBM, Dell and HP among its 80 industry members.
“Because of their positive effect on interoperability, the use of […] open specifications […] has been promoted in many policy statements and is encouraged for European public service delivery,” according to a draft EIF seen by EurActiv.
The BSA alleges that in its current form, the EIF will encourage companies to give away their patents and relinquish any royalties in order to clinch public sector contracts, like providing eGovernment services, for example.
The EIF contains “worrying echoes of Chinese policy,” Francisco Mingorance from the BSA told EurActiv.
The European Committee for Interopable Systems refuted the BSA’s claims and said the EIF does not in any way undermine patent rights or force governments to procure “IP-free” software.
ECIS, which includes IBM, Nokia, Oracle, Red Hat and other companies, said that together its companies have some of the “largest patent portfolios on the planet” and would never do anything to undercut their own intellectual property.
They agreed China does a poor job of protecting IP rights but argued that the EIF is unrelated to that discussion.
“Open standards ensure that software competes on price and innovation, rather than locking in users because they will lose access to their data if they switch to another software package,” said Thomas Vinje, an ECIS spokesman.
“Defining openness does not imply a preference for software that is free of copyright or other intellectual property. On the contrary, it promotes competition, both for open source software and for software on which the owner wants to charge royalties,” Vinje continued.
Chinese government procurement provides privileged access to companies who give away their intellectual property rights to a product.
The row over Chinese public procurement laws recently came to a head when the EU’s trade chief warned the bloc could limit the ability of Chinese companies to bid for public projects unless European companies are given the same access to the Chinese market.
The EIF is due to be adopted by the Commission in the coming weeks and unlike other EU rules, it is not subject to the approval of the European Parliament and the member states. http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-push-patent-free-egovernment-news-498694
Cf. An opinion on the EIF http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=31940
http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/
Update: http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/fsfe-vs-bsa
admin is discussing. 
“[...] Another aspect of Working Groups that confounds many people is the fact that there is no formal voting. The general rule on disputed topics is that the Working Group has to come to “rough consensus”, meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree. The exact method of determining rough consensus varies from Working Group to Working Group. Sometimes consensus is determined by “humming” — if you agree with a proposal, you hum when prompted by the chair; if you disagree, you keep your silence. Newcomers find it quite peculiar, but it works. It is up to the chair to decide when the Working Group has reached rough consensus.
The lack of formal voting has caused some very long delays for some proposals, but most IETF participants who have witnessed rough consensus after acrimonious debates feel that the delays often result in better protocols. (And, if you think about it, how could you have “voting” in a group that anyone can join, and when it’s impossible to count the participants?) Rough consensus has been defined in many ways; a simple version is that it means that strongly held objections must be debated until most people are satisfied that these objections are wrong. [...]” http://www.ietf.org/tao.html