Document Actions
CompTIA comments on FOSS Open Standards Primer
Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) comments on FOSS Open Standards Primer
<!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } -->
Dear Sirs,
I
note with interest the paper prepared by Dr. Nah Soo Hoe under your
office, and welcome the call for comments on the draft as presented.
On behalf of CompTIA – the Computing Technology Industry
Association, I would like to present some preliminary comments of
your paper and would welcome closer, more detailed engagement in the
near future as open debate on this issue is most
constructive.
CompTIA is the
world's largest information and communications technology (ICT) trade
association with 20,000 plus member companies in 102 countries.
CompTIA's members consist of independent software developers, IT
hardware manufacturers; application service providers (ASP's);
commercial software companies, internet service providers (ISP's) and
content firms; distributors and retailers; value added resellers
(VAR’s); plus training, service, and telecommunications companies.
Many of our members are SME's, like many companies in the region and
all have a vital stake in standards and system interoperability. The
Association's members collectively employ thousands of people and
produce billions of US dollars worth of goods and services each year.
The promotion of policies
that enhance growth and competition within the computing world is
central to CompTIA's core function. Further, CompTIA's mission is to
facilitate the development of vendor-neutral standards in e-commerce,
customer service, workforce development, and ICT workforce
certification. These standards enable businesses to simplify
practices, reduce expenses, and compete more effectively in an
increasingly complex and interconnected world. More than 700,000
individuals worldwide have earned CompTIA ICT skills certifications
in PC service, networking, document imaging, and training, security,
and Internet and server technologies. CompTIA has an active Public
Policy Department with an office in Hong Kong, as above, as well as
Washington, D.C, Brussels and Sao Paulo. The Public Policy Department
works to advance the interests of the international technology
community before legislative, executive and judicial branches of
government, and regulatory agencies worldwide, as well as with
multilateral organisations.
CompTIA
also administers. The Initiative for Software Choice
(ISCwww.softwarechoice.org))
is an international coalition of companies and associations.
The ISC is committed to software procurement policies based on the
concept of neutral, merit-based choices that allow government to
select software that best meets their needs.
Your
paper is timely, however I note that the deadline for comments is
September 5th 2005, and given the 86 page document, and the very
nature of its contents, which are complex and subject to
interpretation. Our usual consensus approach of consulting our
members means it is difficult for us to comment in as much depth as
we would like to. However we hope our preliminary comments below are
useful in the development of your paper.
As
an initial observation we do note that you have cited Dr. Krechmer's
excellent paper on the subject. We would draw your attention to his
10 point definition of open standards as being inclusive of the
Industry as a whole.
As
your paper addresses IPR issues in particular patents, perhaps an
outline of our position is appropriate at this time. The greatest
fear of patents in the software standardization process is the
misconception that they would hinder the interoperability of
different types of computer programs and file formats.
CompTIA would like to make
it absolutely clear that robust intellectual property protection –
particularly the patentability of computer-implemented inventions –
is not a deterrent to interoperability, but may in fact enhance it by
providing industry with the right incentives to further invest in the
development of such standards.
Unlike
trade secrets, patents also encourage transparency – in cases where
software is distributed in object code form only, a patent provides
the only public disclosure of the technical concepts embedded in
it.
As in the case of the EU
Community Patent, which would create a single patent across the
European Union, the European Commission has gone to great effort over
recent years to harmonize computer-implemented inventions (CII’s)
despite many public misconceptions of what this would entail.
The European Parliament has been cautious to proceed with any
directive that would dilute the importance of this intellectual
property right. EU Member States and a number of third countries
subscribe to the European Patent Convention (EPC) which has enabled
the European Patent Office (EPO) to grant patent rights for
software-related inventions under intergovernmental – as opposed to
supranational – agreement, for decades.
As
cited on page 66 of your study, CompTIA also supports the industry
position that open standards cannot be defined to the exclusion of
potential patent-based royalties such as RAND. To adopt the
proposed European Interoperability Framework (EIF) definition would
create a preference for a particular business model and automatically
exclude other models in the standards-setting process. To cite
the EIF definition as a valid EU law or norm is not necessarily
correct in that it would discriminate against particular forms of
software development in public procurement and other markets
We would respectfully request that the primer
needs to strike a more balanced, neutral and objective tone.
There is language which we believe is inflammatory and biased against
proprietary and de facto standards, which is not necessary to get the
points across. To cite one example:
"If
the data formats are not known or easily available, then the
organisation may be held to ransom by a particular vendor in using
its proprietary software or systems since it can be prohibitively
expensive or even not possible to convert the data files" (p.
13).
There
are other examples on pages 14.15,20,72 and 75 that we believe could
be more expressed in a more objective tone which would enhance the
overall paper.
The threat
of "lock-in" by a technology or product is we believe
somewhat exaggerated and overlooks how broadly technical
specifications are published and made available. Product, de
facto and proprietary standards in addition to open standards, are
all integral towards achieving interoperability. Proprietary
standards can be well-published, widely licensed and broadly
available, e.g. PDF, Java, Win32 APIs, and thus Governments and users
have flexibility in choosing technologies that are the most suitable
for its purpose based on broad range of considerations.
In
the same vein, the primer uses a limited number of open standards
definitions (pp.6-7) and there are assertions throughout the text to
define open standards as standards that either completely
"patent-free" or "royalty-free," or that are not subject to
any licensing restrictions. This view is squarely at odds with
the longstanding approach taken in the IPR policies of leading open
standards organizations. For example, ANSI, ECMA, ETSI, IEEE,
IETF, ISO/IEC, and ITU expressly acknowledge the right of patent
holders to charge reasonable royalties, and to place reasonable
restrictions – such as field-of-use restrictions, reciprocity
requirements, and restrictions on sub-licensing – on the licensing
of their essential technology covering an open standard.
Several
of the world’s leading standards organizations, acting as part of
the "Global Standards Collaboration" resolved to "strongly
support the adoption of effective intellectual property policies that
are transparent, widely accepted and encourage broad-based
participation and the contribution of valuable technical solutions by
respecting intellectual property rights, including the right of the
intellectual property holder to receive reasonable and adequate
compensation for the shared use of its technology," and "strongly
voice their opposition to policies that mandate compensation-free
licensing provisions."
(http://www.tta.or.kr/gsc/upload/GSC9-14B_IPR_ResolutionFINAL.doc
.) It is significant to note that many successful open
standards in broad use, such as MPEG, GSM, 3GPP, and IEEE 1394,
contain patent licensing that is not royalty free.
In
today's highly dynamic IT marketplace, businesses and other
organizations routinely deploy heterogeneous IT networks consisting
of hardware and software from multiple vendors. In such an
environment, IT firms have strong commercial incentives to ensure
that their products interoperate well with others. One common
way in which IT firms promote such interoperability is by voluntarily
disclosing key technical information, such as application programming
interfaces and protocols, so that other vendors can use this
information in designing interoperable products and services.
IT firms generally have strong incentives to support industry-wide
standardization efforts and to implement such standards in their
products.
The extent
to which a particular product can interoperate with other products or
services can have a significant impact on market demand, and firms
that fail to adhere to widely adopted industry standards risk losing
customers to firms whose products do implement such standards.
I have attached an appendix which sets out our comments on various
paragraphs in the draft primer for your reference.
I
have attached a copy of documents that we have developed in
consultation with our members that relate to Standards and by
extension - interoperability. The EU Interoperability White Paper was
circulated to the EU Commission as a reference work on the subject,
and has been distributed by the commission to all 25 member states
last year. May I draw your attention to the section on "Intellectual
Property Rights and Standardization" on pp. 26-27 of this Paper.
As an example of the industries commitment to the appropriate use of IPR, in June 2005 CompTIA together with international IPR and Chinese IT associations sponsored a two day symposium on Strategies for Creating a Competitive Software Industry, in Beijing that was attended by over 120 policy makers. I have attached the agenda for your reference. At this event we gave all delegates the attachment; Procurement Guidelines for Software Assets which also deals with standards and interoperability under the ISC principles.
You
are welcome to cite any of the attached documents, with
acknowledgement in your final draft. Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you require additional information and we look
forward to receiving a final copy in due course for further
consideration and comments and wish you well with your
work.
Sincerely,
Michael
R K Mudd
Director of Public Policy,
Asia - Pacific. [email protected]
CompTIA Hong Kong Limited.
18/F
One International Finance Centre,
1
Harbour View Street,
Hong Kong SAR,
China.
Tel; + 852 2166 8233
General
Fax; + 852 2166 8999
www.comptia.org
Attachments
- CompTIA Appendices to FOSS Open Standards v1.1
- Strategies for Building a Competitive Software Industry
- European Interoperability White Paper (CompTIA Recommendations)
- Protocols for Government Procurement of Software Assets