Microsoft: Open Standards Are Good... If They're The Open Standards We Get Paid For

from the but-of-course dept

Our own Glyn Moody has been doing some digging and has come up with some interesting info about how Microsoft has been trying to derail an effort in the UK by the government to use open, royalty free standards wherever possible. Microsoft, apparently went on the offensive, arguing strongly that the government should reconsider and also include FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licenses. FRAND is better than nothing, but it's not royalty free, and can certainly limit access to information for those who cannot afford to pay. But what's impressive is how much Microsoft tries to demonize royalty free offerings -- even as it admits in its initial letter than it contributes to "dozens" of royalty free standards.

Moody also notes that Microsoft is misleading in trying to show just how popular FRAND is in open standards when it comes to software:

In a further attempt to downplay RF standards, the letter claims:

one recent study found that a typical laptop contains over 250 technical interoperability standards - with 75% of these being developed under FRAND terms, and only 23% under Royalty Free terms.

But when we look at the study itself, this is what we find:

we created a set of broad categories - display, graphics, sound, storage, BIOS, input device, processor, power, file system, networking, wireless, I/O ports, memory, software, codecs, content protection, security and “other” - and sought relevant standards.

As this makes clear, those "250 technical interoperability standards" were mostly about hardware interoperability. Of the purely software standards a far greater proportion were in fact made available under RF terms. Even more interesting, those RF-licensed standards included many of the absolutely core ones like HTML5, HTTP and HTTPS.

In other words, when it comes to software, the royalty free stuff is the core software that's used to power much of the internet itself. But Microsoft goes on to suggest that royalty free software is somehow limiting, mainly by highlighting some confusion people have had with the open document format. It's the typical Microsoft play: spread FUD to try to push people to its (more costly) solutions. Apparently competing on the merits is just too difficult.

Filed Under: frand, fud, glyn moody, open standards, royalties
Companies: microsoft

UK Publishers: Fair Use Would Put A 'Chokehold On Innovation'

from the say-what-now? dept

We've mentioned a few times that the UK is running a big review of copyright laws in the country, with a focus on questions having to do with fair use and other exceptions to copyright law, and how they impact innovation. While we're still a bit skeptical -- in part because the last such review (the infamous Gowers Report) was almost entirely ignored when it argued against extending copyright law (and even hinted that reducing it would be better) -- we were encouraged to find out that some of the most knowledgeable people around on copyright law were included on the team. James Boyle, in particular, has been quite vocal about the need for actual empirical evidence, rather than just buying the claims of "harm" from industry types.

The review panel recently closed their request for comments, and some folks are publishing their own comments. A really fantastic one is from Glyn Moody, who highlighted actual data and research, and pointed out where the industry's claims were flawed. It's a very powerful analysis, and I hope that the people on the review committee will take it seriously.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, is a trade group representing publishers in the UK, The Publishers Association Limited. While (as of this writing) I cannot find anything on the organization's own website concerning their filing, they did send out an email to various folks, and Shane Richmond kindly forwarded it on to me. It's stunning in its backwards thinking -- and for its complete lack of factual evidence to back up its claims. The Publisher's Association merely listed out a bunch of bullet points, and we'll take a look at a few:

radical changes to IP laws would fly in the face of expert opinion -- senior executives across the whole sector emphasise the importance of the current IP framework in driving innovation and delivering growth.

Except almost none of that is accurate. Tons of experts have gone into great detail on the problems of copyright law today. But, of course, the Publishers ignore all of this. They only asked senior execs who receive the bounty of having a strong government monopoly if that monopoly was important. It's like asking a kid if candy is good for them, and then using that answer as the evidence that candy is good for children.

introducing elements of an American style fair use exception would create legal ambiguity and put a chokehold on innovation. There is no evidence that it would have a positive effect on overall levels of innovation and growth.

And this is the guffaw-inducing claim. The US has a long history of case law around fair use, and while there are ambiguities, the idea that it would put a chokehold on innovation to allow people to do more with copyrighted works is simply laughable. The Publishers support this with absolutely no evidence. And, of course, the biggest evidence comes from us right here in the US, where we did implement just such a fair use regime, and it did not lead to any chokehold on innovation.

in ten years of surveying British companies on barriers to innovation, the UK Government has not found evidence that companies believe the IP regime to be a barrier to their growth.

I don't quite know the details of this particular study, but the issue that David Cameron raised when he initiated this review of copyright law remain pretty key: all of the big US tech and media companies rely heavily on fair use. If UK companies don't think they need fair use, they may not realize just what they're missing.

barriers to growth and innovation are not the fault of copyright law, but are caused by copyright infringement, the wider business environment and inefficiencies in the licensing system.

[citation needed] All of the (non-industry) evidence suggests otherwise. That's what Glynn's submission highlighted in many points. So why would the Publishers make a claim that is so easily refuted by the evidence?

proposals to tackle these problems are in train and Government has a critical role to play in speeding up implementation of the Digital Economy Act and in supporting industry efforts to reduce the incidence of copyright infringing weblinks being prominently displayed in search engine results.

Yes, this is the Publishers' big solution for innovation: making linking illegal and kicking people off the internet. So very forward thinking of them. Of course, it's no surprise that a big trade group representing a bunch of legacy players who hate change would argue against change based on nothing more than fear and an unwillingness to adapt. However, one hopes that the review committee will put such comments into their proper context.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, glyn moody, innovation, publishers, uk
Companies: publishers association