Jeff Kaplan - Open ePolicy

Software Patents: Innovation's Quicksand

2007-10-16T09:49:00.000-04:00

Eric Maskin is no fan of software patents, and people should pay attention.

Professor Maskin is no technology flower child pushing P2P with his LSD. This Harvard and MIT economist just won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on mechanism design theory. In 1999, he turned his economic eye to the value of software patents. And found them wanting.

His research showed that when patent protections for software strengthened during the 1980s, "far from unleashing a flurry of new innovative activity, these stronger property rights ushered in a period of stagnant, if not declining, R&D among those industries and firms that patented most."

Strong patent protection produced less R&D spending, and slowed productivity growth.

Why?

Technology is an industry of sequential innovation, with advancements built on the preceding invention of others. Imitation breeds innovation. In software, copying ideas and concepts is vital for innovation. Hence, the genius of open source as a software development model -- few barriers to the use of other people's concepts and code.

In dynamic industries like software, patents constrict innovation.

This relates to a larger enemy of innovation that I have blogged about -- content scarcity.

Maybe it is time to stop applying 19th Century rules on intellectual property to post-industrial areas that have an entirely different economic mechanics?

Categories: innovation, software, IP

An Inconvenient Nobel Prize

2007-10-12T09:35:00.000-04:00

Al Gore, modern day prophet, has just won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to raise social and political awareness of the dangers of global warming. Gore shares the Prize the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Propelled by the movie "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore has toured the world delivering his PowerPoint pitch on the risks of man-made climate change. The film won an Academy Award. The man is now a Nobel laureate.

The best thing that ever happened to Al Gore was being defrauded in the 2000 election.

Of course, George Bush, the court-appointed winner of that election, is likely too thick to recognize that this year's Peace Prize is a direct retort to his empty, oil-infused rhetoric on climate change and energy policy. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol early in his presidency and has spent the intervening years doing nothing to break the US's "oil addiction" as he called it. Empty words.

Some may question the connection between global warming and peace. It is a short-sighted protest. It is not hard to imagine how severe climate change--bringing the loss of drinkable fresh water, massive flooding, refugees and ruined agricultural lands--could spark major conflicts as people become more desperate to avoid its impact.

Gore will no doubt reject the temptation to run for President this year, despite the efforts of draftGore.com. And why should he? He's on a roll, and the rest of the world beyond 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue knows it.

Categories: GlobalWarming, AlGore

GSA "FEMAs" California

2007-10-04T08:41:00.000-04:00

Life on the Internet can be fragile, as California learned yesterday. While taking counter-measures against a hacker re-directing traffic from a state county's website to a porn website, the U.S. General Services Administration deleted California - virtually.

For seven hours, the entire ".ca" domain -- home to every government agency in California -- was gone. A flick of a a switch and ... No web access. No email. No California.

It started with the discovery that the website for Transportation Authority of Marin Country was hacked, and all traffic we sent to pornographic websites. The fear that its DNS server had been compromised, and could thus compromise the entire ".ca" domain apparently led the GSA to make California disappear entirely -- or more technically de-list ".ca" making it in accessible from servers worldwide.

As more public services become web-delivered, the need for reliable 24/7 access is obvious. Maybe a little more attention needs to be paid to disaster recovery by governments as they pursue e-government.

Who needs an earthquake when you have GSA? Maybe we should get FEMA to take over the ".gov" domain management.

Open Source Gets Himalayan High

2007-09-10T20:25:00.000-04:00

It is a rare day when I can mention open source and Bhutan in the same sentence. The beautiful, tiny, mountain kingdom is far from a hotbed of technology innovation. Or is it?

Bhutan represents a great example of the power of open source. Too small to get its language supported in Microsoft products, open source allows Bhutan to help itself. The result ...

Dzongkha Linux (Pronounced like "Zonka"). Its release by the country's Department of Information and Technology demonstrates what open source--and only $80,000--can do.

Developed in 13 months, Dzongkha Linux is bootable on both Mac and Windows systems It is also bilingual, supporting both English and the Dzongkha language for word processing, spreadsheets, PowerPoint, web browsing, even chat. And Bhutan is not done yet. Next they plan to develop local language based, speech recognition and text-to-speech functionality.

All that innovation for an $80,000 investment. Now that is a major return on investment, courtesy of open source.

Categories: Bhutan, opensource

ISO Rejects OOXML - Now What?

2007-09-04T16:02:00.000-04:00

After months of political maneuvering and manipulation, ISO has rejected OOXML for fast track approval as an international standard. Approval required a two-thirds majority, or 67% "yes" votes. OOXML received 53%, a few votes short.

Rejection of OOXML is a setback for Microsoft, which wanted ISO approval to help convince customers--especially governments--to accept its usage and speed adoption of Vista and Office 2007.

The loss is likely temporary, though it is difficult to say how temporary. In February, ISO will convene a special ballot resolution meeting to consider changes to OOXML addressing technical objections raised by countries. There are many. And most do not address to core issue -- the need for a truly open document standard (like ODF) without proprietary extensions (as currently fill OOXML).

The real battle continues in the marketplace and in government policy circles. However, Microsoft can do itself (and ISO) a big favor, and follow the advice of France...

Split OOXML into two standards -- one that can be merged into ODF as a real open standard; and one that catalogs all the proprietary extensions needed for backward compatibility with the legacy MS formats (a closed but useful standard).

In this case, splitting the baby will save it (and us).

Categories: ISO, OOXML, Microsoft

Microsoft: Mistakes Were Made in Sweden

2007-08-30T14:45:00.000-04:00

Microsoft has admitted that a rogue employee sent a letter to MS partners in Sweden advising that they were expected to join the recent OOXML-as-ISO-standard meeting and vote "yes" in return for "market subsidies" (like paying for their advertising) and "additional support in the form of Microsoft resources." [Article is translated here.]

Microsoft has said that it was unauthorized, improper and quickly corrected. On his blog, Microsoft's Jason Matusow noted yesterday that "The whole point of the process is that organizations with an interest may participate."

He is right. Unfortunately.

In most countries, the technical committees considering how to vote on OOXML have created a process that invites (even relies on) companies -- all of whom have huge commercial interests in the decision -- to vote.

Such a process invites games, and abuses - as I noted here.

Why are governments enabling this? Why are governments abdicating their responsibility for decisions that affect public interests? Yes, technical issues are involved. But they are technical issues with big impact on public interests.

So blame the companies for their underhanded actions, and blame governments failing in their duty to serve the public interests.

[Quick Update: After revelations of improper actions by a Microsoft employee and concerns that it tainted voting on OOXML, the Swedish Standards Institute has declared its vote invalid and decided to abstain in the ISO vote.

Apparently, Sweden is not alone. Hungary's Minister of Economy & Transport instructed the Hungarian Standards Institution to re-do the OOXML voting due to ballot stuffing, arbitrary changing of rules, and exclusion of "no" voters.]

Categories: OpenStandards, OOXML, Sweden, Microsoft

Microsoft Stuffs OOXML Ballot Box in Sweden?

2007-08-28T10:48:00.001-04:00

Sweden is the stage for the latest games being played as the ISO vote on OOXML approaches. Last minute arrivals (listed here) at the meeting of Sweden's technical committee tipped the vote in favor of OOXML.

Is this Microsoft's fault? The real problem is that countries like Sweden (and Portugal before this) never established clear, transparent rules on who and how votes take place.

And companies exploit this. Why? Because huge business interests are at stake, and they can. Microsoft gets its business partners to vote. Microsoft's competitors also show up to vote. They all pay their admission fee and vote.

This is what happens when a vote that should be based on technical and public interest grounds is left to companies to decide.

The basic question: why should companies vote at all on a country's position on a standard?

Whether one standard or another best serves the public interest of a country is not an issue that should be decided by companies, which all have huge market and business interests at stake. This is a decision for government -- weighed by technical experts and decided in a transparent process by politically accountable officials.

Anything less is unacceptable.

Categories: OpenStandards, OOXML, Sweden

India Rejects OOXML, for Now

2007-08-24T11:51:00.000-04:00

Another big shoe has dropped on OOXML.

India will vote "No" at the upcoming ISO vote on whether or not OOXML should be a standard. For the moment, India is saying "not."

After six hours of debate, 19 of the 21 members of India's technical committee agreed to vote "No" with comments, meaning that should Microsoft later address technical concerns about OOXML, India might shift its position. That will be no easy task. There are some 200 technical issues that have been raised by various parties to the OOXML specification, which itself spans a few thousand pages.

Last week a similarly big blow struck OOXML when Brazil decided to vote "No". As one member of its technical committee indicated, Brazil is likely to use ODF as the basis for its national document standard.

Most countries have not yet indicated their position. However, with the US abstaining and China and Japan voting "No," it is difficult to see how OOXML will in reality become a global standard, regardless of the ISO vote results.

ODF and OOXML will likely coexist for a time, and some (like Gartner) argue that OOXML will be the de facto standard given Microsoft's market dominance. Yet, technology dominance is a hard to maintain forever, and the winds are shifting as governments look to ODF, not OOXML, as the foundation for their own national standards.

After all, silicon is not stone. There is always the hope that Microsoft will continue to evolve and find a way to provide backward compatibility with all its proprietary formats while still ensuring that an unencumbered document standard like ODF is the way forward.

Categories: OpenStandards, OOXML, India, Brazil

Global Warming's Give and Take in Norway

2007-08-21T19:40:00.000-04:00

Global warming is bearing gifts to Norway. As Norway's glaciers disappear, it is gaining islands at an equally rapid (or alarming) pace.

On the Svalbard archipelago, a cluster of islands off Norway's northwest coast, the give and take of climate change are evident and undeniable.

Svalbard's glaciers are melting, and fast. The ice is receding at a rate of 16 cubic kilometers each year, according to the Norwegian Polar Institute.

At the same time, new islands are appearing along Svalbard's coasts. But these islands are not its first global warming gifts.

Last year, a new island emerged off Svalbard.

In 2004, yet another island, the size of a soccer field, rose off the eastern coastline of Svalbard.

What global warming taketh, it giveth back.

For some, it means access to new lands and natural resources (like oil). For others, it means submerged homes, less food and the disappearance of water supplies.

Lucky Norway.

Categories: GlobalWarming, Norway

China: Patent Moves Meets Standards Muscle

2007-08-12T11:10:00.000-04:00

China is moving up the intellectual property value chain and becoming a serious player in the IP world. In 2005, the number of Chinese patents jumped 33% over the prior year. It ranked 3rd behind the US and Japan, filing 170,000 patents. And that was 2 years ago.

China's influence over the future of technology is not limited to what is built, but also what is standardized. This only magnifies China's market impact.

China has not yet signaled how it will vote on fast track for the OOXML document standard at ISO. The US will not support fast track. While this is notable, China's vote will be the major indicator of OOXML's future. China has its own national standard for document formats - UOF. It has a stake in the standards fight different than the US, and leverage over the debate that the US lacks.

Critics argue that the volume of Chinese patents says nothing about the quality of those patents or the creativity of its technology. That may be true ... for now. But tens of thousands of engineers graduating every year combined with entrepreneurial drive and the growth of multinational research centers in China will change that, sooner rather than later.

As any foreign company in China will tell, their most talented Chinese staff are constantly leaving for new positions in other companies or their own start-up.

I have no idea how China will vote on the OOXML document standard. And I do not underestimate Microsoft's will to establish itself in China, as discussed here.

Still, I have my suspicions. OOXML does not support the use of Chinese characters within a Web address, and its use of Windows-specific specs for many functions -- for example, "useWord97LineBreakRules" or "autoSpaceLikeWord95" -- makes OOXML less appealing to a China intent on building its own patent portfolio and high tech industry.

[Image: "China Flag" by Dion Laurent]

Categories: China, openstandards, IP, OOXML

When the Boss Mentions Open Source

2007-08-06T15:23:00.001-04:00

Just saw this and laughed.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ...

Has Microsoft Open Sourced Itself in China?

2007-08-01T12:19:00.000-04:00

Many reports are now discussing how Microsoft has conquered China through a combination of political hands-on and piracy hands-off, together with deep discounts (some call it dumping).

Another way to describe Microsoft strategy in China is open source lite.

Yes, Bill Gates has courted Chinese politicians aggressively in Beijing and Redmond. Yes, Microsoft has a shiny, new Chinese research center. Yes, it offers Windows/Office at rock bottom prices - $3 for Chinese students. The discount for government is top secret.

But, most importantly, Microsoft now takes a hands-off approach to the rampant pirating of its software in China.

The truth is: Piracy is helping Microsoft compete in China, and beat Linux.

In effect, Microsoft has partially open sourced itself in China ...

Windows and Office are copied and distributed for free (or nearly so) without any real licensing or IP restraints, and without legal challenge by Microsoft.

MS provides access to source code, for the government at least, allowing the Chinese to insert their own code and cryptography.

As a matter of business strategy, Microsoft is concentrating on building (even dominating) market share first, and worrying about sales second.

And finally, it has made China--through its research center in Beijing--an integral part of a collaborative, global process for software development.

Sound familiar? It isn't.

It's not the normal Microsoft strategy, and obviously it is not the work of an open source company. But Microsoft's approach to China has stolen a few pages from the open source playbook.

Call it: "Dr. Gateslove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Piracy."

Categories: China, Microsoft, opensource

FBI Investigates Ted Stevens' Tube Fetish

2007-07-30T19:28:00.000-04:00

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) really has a thing for tubes. Not long ago, Stevens displayed his ignorance about the Internet by describing it as a "series of tubes." Brilliant!

Apparently, however, those were not the only tubes of interest to Stevens. This time it's tubes as in plumbing and wiring.

As I write this, the FBI and IRS are searching Stevens' Anchorage home as part of a corruption investigation into the re-modeling his house -- work possibly paid for by Veco, an oil-field service company that lobbies government extensively.

When it comes to tubes, maybe Senator Stevens is more of an expert than we knew.

Categories: Internet, FBI, tubes

Portugal Plays Musical Chairs on OOXML

2007-07-27T10:07:00.001-04:00

After reading commentary on a recent meeting in Portugal to decide that country's position on voting for/against acceptance of OOXML as a standard by ISO ... a couple questions arise. Fortunately, they have simple answers.

1. Can an "open standard" require proprietary extensions in order to implement it?

No.

2. If the standards process is not open to any and all participants, can the standard produced be considered "open"?

No.

[Are you listening Portugal and Italy? You cannot shut people out of the discussion and then claim the standard under discussion is an open standard. The size of the room is NOT a legitimate reason to limit discussion.]

3. Should "fast track" ever be part of the standards process (at least if an open standard is the objective)?

No.

Standards by definition are technical and complex. They are not amendable to short-cuts or fast tracks. The only reason to fast track consideration is to limit discussion (and discussants). And that undermines the basic foundation of an open standard.

If the process is invisible or closed, the standard is not open.

Categories: OpenStandards, Portugal

Open Standards and IP (Redux)

2007-07-21T11:56:00.000-04:00

A simple question: should an "open standard" have any proprietary elements in it?

If this sounds like the start of an extremist, anti-business rant on standards (and vendors), let me re-phrase the question ...

Should development of a standard begin with the business considerations of a company or the technical need to ensure interoperability and unfettered use in any future products by any person or company?

I ask this question with no axe to grind. I work for no vendor. I have no equity stake in any standards or company promoting them.

If you think the idea of open standards being standards with no proprietary elements is heretical or simply some Platonic ideal divorced from reality, consider this ...

We are moving in that direction already, though slowly.

The fact that interoperability is becoming the touchstone for any standards discussion is a positive sign. Governments--the largest set of technology consumers--are starting to assert their interests (the public interest) in both interoperability and avoiding permanent lock-in any one technology or vendor.

Companies are beginning to loosen (though not legally liberate) standards from their intellectual property claims. That is another positive step. Latest news on that front: IBM's "patent pledge" to grant universal access to hundreds of patents related to web services and SOA.

IBM's decision is laudable, but not ideal. It sends an important message to the market: let innovation reign, and don't worry about us suing. It does not remove IBM's legal right to assert control. It just offers the world a partial, unilateral IP disarmament. That is a good thing, and more than most big IT companies have done.

When it comes to open standards, proprietary anything creates barriers. A pledge to not assert ownership to a standard removes one proprietary barrier (litigation). It does not remove all proprietary barriers.

Why should I have to talk about products to have a discussion of an open standard?

Why should I be forced to consider (or enter) a business relationship with any single company when I consider using an open standard?

Why should an open standard come with any strings (or chains) attached?

The answer is, it shouldn't.

Open standards should be agnostic to products and companies and business models and ... IP.

[Image: Pandora's Chains - CalTech]

Categories: interoperability, openstandards, IP

Open Standards Rise in Japan

2007-07-15T10:03:00.000-04:00

Once again Japan stands out for technology leadership in Asia. Last week, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry issued its official Interoperability Framework.

It makes open standards -- including the OpenDocument Format (ODF)-- a required element of its procurement rules for technology and e-government.

The main objective of Japan's open standards requirement for procurement: interoperability (both data and process compatibility) and optimizing the value of ICT investments.

The Framework emphasizes a few specific policy points:

* the need to guarantee long-term access and retention of public documents.

* a prohibition on specifying individual products in procurement to avoid lock-in and dependency on non-interoperable products.

* when procuring software, open source software should be considered.

* decisions on software procurement should exclude software from considered based upon its development model or license.

* Preferred data formats are XML-based formats supported by multiple products/vendors with a low degree of dependence upon any single platform or specific technology.

And lastly, at the moment Japan's new Interoperability Framework recognizes only one acceptable document format: OpenDocument Format (ODF).

Categories: openstandards, ODF, Japan

FCC: Open Source Idiots

2007-07-06T17:02:00.000-04:00

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is apparently both ignorant about open source software and distrustful of the market's ability to determine the efficacy of new products.

The FCC is set to issue new rules governing "smart" radios -- the next generation of mobile technology that can receive signals from cellphones, broadband, radio and TV stations. While the radios may be smart, the regulators are not ... at least when it comes to open source.

As the FCC puts it, "a system that is wholly dependent on open-source elements will have a high burden to demonstrate that it is sufficiently secure to warrant authorization as a software-defined radio."

The FCC has swallowed the stale FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about open source and will rule that smart radios using open source software are inherently less secure. This is at odds with the opinions of tech security experts. Even the industry association representing telecom giants like Motorola and AT&T disagrees, and urged the FCC to rethink its position.

By endorsing a "security through obscurity" approach to software, the FCC ignores the past decade of software development and the judgment of federal agencies intimately committed to security (like the Pentagon and NSA) that use open source in an increasing number of security sensitive areas.

Unfortunately, the combined determination of security experts, industry engineers, and market testing is not enough for the FCC. Its new rules will only delay the arrival of innovative, new products in the market without any assurance that security will be improved.

At least the FCC did not ban open source in smart radios outright.

If only the FCC would follow some good, old fashioned wisdom: Don't just do something, stand there.

Categories: opensource, FCC

Does Interoperability Require an IP Discussion?

2007-07-05T00:33:00.000-04:00

According to Microsoft, yes. According to Red Hat, no. Microsoft and Red Hat -- oil and water -- and they don't mix, as recent discussions have shown. End of story right? Not necessarily ...

Interoperability and intellectual property are entirely different. Interoperability is about enabling things to work together, more at a "mechanical" level. IPR is about ownership of things and conditions on the right to use them.

Interoperability is also not about open vs. closed. Both open and proprietary technologies can be designed to interoperate.

You can design an application to work seamlessly with other apps without giving up your ownership of it.

Although interoperability and intellectual property are fundamentally different animals, they live in the same jungle. Interoperability does not undercut IPR, but IPR can impede interoperability. For example, an IP owner can set conditions on use of its patented technology that prevents development of a plug-in enabling it to work with other applications.

The result: users have an interoperability problem. However, it is an artificial problem created by technology vendors -- not the user or the engineering of interoperability itself. It is not a problem intrinsic to interoperability, but rather linked to the business models of the vendors discussing it.

The question for vendors is: which is more important?

Categories: interoperability, IPR

China's Newest Export: Baseball Players

2007-06-18T21:12:00.001-04:00

It was bound to happen one day. A Major League Baseball team signs a player from China. That day is today, and that team is the New York Yankees, who signed not one but two young Chinese baseball players, with approval from the China Baseball Association.

This deal, however, falls more into the Dominican Republic category than the Japan or Korea category. What do I mean? This is not about signing talented players, often late in their careers as happens in Japan. This is about the long-term development of baseball in China, players and fans. Under the deal, Chinese teams will gain access to Yankee training facilities in New York and Florida. There will also be an exchange of coaches and trainers.

Will China become the next Venezuela of baseball? Is the baseball version of Yao Ming out there waiting to be signed? Nobody knows. But the New York Yankees are investing in that possibility. It's smart baseball and good business for the MLB and the Yankees brand.

Categories: baseball, China

What's the Matter With Standards in China?

2007-06-18T01:04:00.000-04:00

When the question of standards is raised in China, officials and companies are quick to focus on one issue: intellectualy property rights.

A week of meetings in China--including discussions with officials from the State Council, the Beijing Municipality and national standards bodies--made clear that China's drive to develop its own technology standards (open and closed) is directly linked to its intent to avoid IPR owned by foreign companies. The issue is less about open verses closed, but standards with or without IPR.

China does not want its innovation, its industrial development beholden to others. And does not want to spend the next 20 years watching royalties and license fees flow overseas. Even pledges not to sue are unacceptable, which partly explains why China developed its own opendocument format instead of simply adopting ODF.

Hence, its move to open standards, and in particular standards without any IPR. China intends to level the playing field, at least within its borders, to the maximum extent possible. In fact, at least one official from a Chinese standards organization maintained that a standard is not "open" if it has any IPR in its specification.

China's influence over the direction and content of the standards debate will surely increase. And other governments will follow suit, insisting upon open standards unemcumbered by IPR. As these policies become reflected in procurement and the work of international standards bodies, it will drive changes in how companies develop and sell technology, at least those that want access to China's growing market.

Categories: openstandards, China

Open Source Insecurity? Don't Tell the Military

2007-05-30T23:31:00.000-04:00

Think of the most high risk, highly classified area for using technology. Military units trying to communicate in the heat of battle. Surely, fighting wars is too demanding, too dangerous, too chaotic to risk using any systems based on open source and open standards?

Think again. War is the ultimate interoperability challenge.

The U.S. military's newest, most advanced battlefield technology is based on open standards and open source. When bullets fly, the U.S. turns to open technologies to ensure interoperability -- to ensure that coalition forces can communicate over secure networks, share classified data in real time, and coordinate combat operations.

Governments who think that open technologies are too insecure, immature and unreliable for mission critical activities could not be more wrong.

Generic statements about the security or insecurity of any technology are useless at best, and usually just propaganda for someone's beliefs. But the U.S. military is finding new ways to apply open technologies to their hardest, most dangerous needs.

Web-based chat, shared whiteboards to map operations, shared databases, file transfer -- and all based on open standards and all scheduled for deployment. Without compromising security, or secrecy. It is the very openness of these technologies that allows the military to ensure interoperability, maintain flexibility to rapidly integrate future innovations, and guard security.

And it is not only the U.S. military; others are turning to open technologies.

Does that make application of open technologies easy? No. Does it mean that every government agency should take notice? Yes.

Categories: opensource, openstandards, military

Blogging is Sex, Not Masturbation

2007-05-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

Blogging, like unsafe sex and political protest, is risky behavior.

According to a new UK study, bloggers are taking big risks by posting derogatory comments and damaging details about their firms, bosses and colleagues. One-third of all bloggers risk losing their jobs over their blogging activities.

I have posted before about the risks to bloggers of being political scapegoats or the target of legal retaliation.

This is different. Blogging is like unprotected sex. It feels like masturbation, but it is unsafe sex with a world of unknown partners.

Or to use another metaphor, this is about self-immolation.

Sitting alone in your office or home, it is easy to forget that blogging is a public activity. It feels private and informal, like writing a diary that nobody reads. It isn't. Blogs, for the most part, are public property, a web-based diary accessible to the world.

Would you go around your office hanging signs on the walls with critical comments of your boss? No? Then take care. Blogging is basically the same thing.

If you want to make a statement, make it. But understand it is for public consumption.

Categories: blogging

A Little Search Help ...

2007-05-25T01:08:00.000-04:00

This is not my usual type of post.

I need your help with something ...

I want to find some people who know about "search" -- to chat about capabilities and development of different types of search engines (Google and beyond).

Can you suggest anyone to contact?

Digg in the Crossfire

2007-05-21T18:57:00.000-04:00

Digg.com is caught in a crossfire -- facilitate piracy or censor content provided by its users.

Digg--a user-prioritized news site--deleted stories featuring code for cracking copyrighted DVDs, as demanded by the AACS Licensing Authority, an entertainment industry consortium. Digg users rebelled, and overloaded its website with postings. Digg backed down, allowed re-posting of the stories, and now faces a possible lawsuit (and court-ordered closure).

Truly the definition of "between a rock and a hard place." Internet users ( = Digg customers) verses copyright holders.

Who do you side with?

Either side could close down your business.

Censor articles posted by users and watch them crash your website, or side with their wish to share stories that expose intellectual property and risk closure by lawsuit.

What does this fight show? For one thing, intellectual property rules created for industrial societies do not work for a networked world.

Categories: piracy, copyright, Digg

Open Source Samurai

2007-05-20T08:05:00.001-04:00

Japan is planning to put Microsoft to the sword. The government has announced that open source software will be top priority in public procurement, and vendors are lining up to provide it.

Open source may prove to be Japan's Field of Dreams, demonstrating to the world that when creating a market for open source, if government buys it, they will come.

The Ministry of Communications has issued new procurement guidelines that makes open source (specifically, Linux) a priority beginning on July 1.

Japan's open source move follows a recent policy declaring that technologies based upon open standards, including the OpenDocument Format (ODF), will have priority.

It is notable that the initial list of vendors jumping at the open source opportunities on offer by the Japanese government do not include any "pure" open source companies.

The Japanese government will need to be mindful that procurements involving open source are not like other IT procurements. They require real work by an agency to identify potential open source solutions and the support (internally, or by vendors, consultants or communities) BEFORE a tender is put into the market.

Categories: opensource, Japan