arebenti 1232058899|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Gerry Gavigan contributed in the name of the Open Source Consortium to the consultation for an improved European Interoperability Framework:
We were particularly pleased to see the issue of software patents addressed in a manner that prevents them being used to hinder competition rather than the original purpose of patent law, to promote innovation. We are concerned about the current state of the standards process, as evidenced by the recent ISO process relating to a standard that no-one implements "Open XML" which appears to be achieving full recognition in spite of safeguards in the standards process rather than because of them.
Other contributions can be found here. Although Microsoft said it wants to offer Open XML patent licensing on a royalty-free base it strongly advocates against the existing European interoperability definition of open standards which currently provides for no patent restrictions. Of course it doesn't. The American company writes to the Commission:
The discussion of standards and technical specifications is necessary, and would serve the requirements of an interoperability framework better without the redefinition of the meaning of “open standards” carried over from EIF 1.0.
For IT professionals it might sound odd that a term as 'open standards' the EU Interoperability Framework explains correctly is suddenly described as a redefinition by the very company that redefines it and invested so much in lobbying. You are lying, yells the liar.
The European Interoperability Framework 1.0 is so popular because it adapts to business reality. This is why the contributions to the EIF update process which lead to an EIF2 have a specific political relevance for software professionals in Europe. If foreign companies succeed to subvert terminology and standards driven by their commercial interests, what role for Europeans whom their administrations and standard bodies are supposed to serve?
arebenti, 1232058899|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
