
How Microsoft Fought True Open Standards I  - strawberryshake
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/how-microsoft-lobbied-against-true-open-standards-i/index.htm?cmpid=sbycombinatoranguyen
======
crusso
I'm not a UK citizen, but doesn't this Cabinet Office make its own decisions?

The article focused so much on what Microsoft is lobbying for and Microsoft's
use of rhetoric for its own ends, but seemed to place little blame on the
Cabinet Office itself.

What does the author expect Microsoft to argue for besides use of its own
products and standards?

Really, it would be far more valuable to call out the Cabinet Office's
decision makers and the process they use for coming to these kinds of
decisions.

------
davidwtbuxton
I didn't see the link to the documents quoted in the article, so here is the
request and the documents provided in response.

[http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/open_standards_when_sp...](http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/open_standards_when_specifying_i#incoming-269756)

------
brudgers
Doesn't ICT (information and communication technology) include hardware as
well as software? While I understand the attraction open source holds, the law
was clearly written not to require its use. Microsoft is not acting
nefariously. They are simply commenting on government rules in a similar way
to other interest groups.

~~~
sounds
I think the article succinctly rebuts you:

"But there's a larger point here. Many hardware standards are indeed FRAND
rather than RF, but contrary to Microsoft's assertion in the letter of 20 May,
these would not 'be excluded by PPN 3/11's definition of Open Standards.' And
the reason is extremely simple: because that original Open Standards document
began by declaring:

" _When purchasing software, ICT infrastructure, ICT security and other ICT
goods and services, Cabinet Office recommends that Government departments
should wherever possible deploy open standards in their procurement
specifications._

"It then goes on to emphasise:

" _Government departments should ensure that they include open standards in
their ICT procurement specifications unless there are clear business reasons
why this is inappropriate._

"That is, there are already two very clear get-out clauses that would permit
the use of FRAND standards when there were no RF standards available, or -
even more flexibly - if there were 'clear business reasons why [the use of RF
open standards] is inappropriate'.

"Nobody is suggesting that GSM phones, say, should be banned from UK
government use, as Microsoft's letter seems to insinuate. For a start, these
are hardware standards, and not about software interoperability at all;
secondly, there are no comparable RF open standards that could be used, and
even if there were, there would be clear business reasons why GSM phones
should still be purchased. There simply isn't a problem here."

~~~
brudgers
Comments on regulations are invited so that government authorities may
determine what those regulations mean and how to implement them.

It appears from the article Microsoft is asserting that some interpretations
which would be disfavorable to Microsoft have broader implications if applied
uniformly across the spectrum of ICT goods and services.

The author wants to draw a distinction between software and hardware under the
law without supplying evidence that such a distinction is made within it, e.g.
his claim about GSM being acceptable is based on "nobody suggesting."

The author appears to have an ax to grind, democratic processes be damned.

~~~
AutoCorrect
uhh, did we read the same article? he suggests that in all instances FRAND
would be acceptable if there were not a truly open standard.

MS is still doing it's best to 'cut off the air supply' of a free and open IT
ecosystem. Nothing new to see hear. MS fanbois will proclaim innocence until
the last GPLed piece of code is eliminated.

