EU Calls For Use of Open Standards

fondacio writes "In a speech that is being reported as taking a swipe at Microsoft, EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has called for businesses and governments to use software based on open standards. While not mentioning Microsoft by name, Ms. Kroes referred to the fact that '[t]he [European] Commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case' until this befell Microsoft. The things she told a conference in Brussels will not come as a surprise to Slashdot readers, but it's encouraging to hear the following quotes from someone in her position: 'Where interoperability information is protected as a trade secret, there may be a lot of truth in the saying that the information is valuable because it is secret, rather than being secret because it is valuable... we should only standardize when there are demonstrable benefits, and we should not rush to standardize on a particular technology too early... I fail to see the interest of customers in including proprietary technology in standards when there are no clear and demonstrable benefits over non-proprietary alternatives.'"

Comments

ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Neelie Kroes rules. She makes me proud to be Dutch. That does not happen too often. Soccer be damned.

Re:ha!

[ilikejam]

Never mind - that perl script he gave you looks quite useful.

Interesting.

[jd]

Europe does a lot of stupid things, but it also does some amazingly brilliant things. This speech is brilliant, let's hope the follow-up isn't stupid. It's definitely a jab at Microsoft, but it's also a jab at ISO in the comments about not rushing things. I think Europe is most displeased with what is going on, or at least some senior figures within it. This does need to translate to action. Possibly on more than one front. If the European Courts are presented with evidence that Microsoft hijacked the ISO standards procedure in an effort to "comply" with prior rulings in a dishonest way, I imagine the court would not be pleased. Could it be considered contempt of court to attempt to mislead the court over compliance? Does the EU court system even have such a concept? If not, can/will the judges increase the fines to reflect the seriousness of the situation? Or given Microsoft's continual appeals and non-payment, are there any other penalties they can exact, such as suspending the business license for Microsoft's European branch?

Re:Interesting.

[Elektroschock]

Or given Microsoft's continual appeals and non-payment, are there any other penalties they can exact, such as suspending the business license for Microsoft's European branch?

Say: It was a real blow with a diplomatic Commissioner who did not mention the elephant in the room. The European political class is pissed by Microsoft's lobbying against open standards and interoperability, its software patents agitation, the OOXML debacle and its disobedient treatment of the Commission. Microsoft has public affairs problems in different parts of the Commission. Lobbying for Microsoft is generally perceived as working for Tobacco lobby groups.

a) Nelly indirectly endorsed the OFE Open Parliament petition and the Hague Declaration.

b) Nelly spoke of proprietary vs. non-proprietary standards, a terminology not used by the Commission before.

c) Nelly recommended Munich and the Netherlands as best practice.

There is much to learn from other public bodies such as Munich - and I am delighted to have the Mayor of Munich here this morning to tell us about his experience. But Munich is not alone: there is also the German Foreign Ministry [switched to Linux and open standards], and the French Gendarmerie. The Dutch Government and Parliament are also moving towards open standards. d) Munich's Mayor Christian Ude took the floor and explicitely condemned OOXML after her speech and spoke of the 'free software' used in his municipality. Original reason: no extended support for Win NT 4

e) Ditmar Harhoff, an economist, called for patent reform. Europe would be well advised not to follow the US

g) Graham Tailor from Open Forum put emphasis on the Freedom to Leave.

From the speech of the Commissioner:

The Commission must do its part. It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards, and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology â" jeopardizing maintenance of full control over the information in its possession.

This view is born from a hard headed understanding of how markets work â" it is not a call for revolution, but for an intelligent and achievable evolution.

But there is more to this than ensuring our commercial decisions are taken in full knowledge of their long term effects. There is a democratic issue as well.

When open alternatives are available, no citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to use a particular company's technology to access government information.

No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one, through a government having made that choice first.

These democratic principles are important. And an argument is particularly compelling when it is supported both by democratic principles and by sound economics.

I know a smart business decision when I see one - choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed. and:

Non-proprietary standards avoid the need for licence agreements and royalties. They avoid the need to ask permission if you want to use or develop the technology â" follow-on innovation may be easier. They avoid subjecting the future development of the standard and the technology to the commercial interests of the technology's originator.

Re:Profit? Crime has not paid.

[Elektroschock]

The statement about monetary incentives is wrong because what the Commission just expects compliance with its rulings. Usually companies do comply. The competition authority acts similarly to a court. Competitors file a complaint, then the Commission rules, then the convicted monopolist complies. This is the way is works. Microsoft broken the rules and refused to comply, it delayed the process, bullied the Commission, lobbied aggressively, even let foreign nations intervene on their behalf.

The penalties are just for non-compliance, the difficulties of the myriads of Microsoft lobby outfits to "understand" what the Commission wants. When Microsoft sued the Commission it won just another enemy. Microsoft acted like a bully, bought politicians, harassed the Commission. This made so many people fed up. Parliament members file parliament questions on Microsoft. Lobbying for Microsoft got a pretty bad smell if you care about your career in public affairs.

Re:the MacOS is dead

[fabs64]

OSX is not an operating system, it's a whole heap of (very well done) toolkits and apps bundled with a *nix operating system.

Read your Tanenbaum son.

Re:Richard Stallman

[moreati]

I have to take issue with you there on a couple of points. Stallman is a fanatic and he has entered crack pot country before. I happen to think he's right much of the time.

I take issue with:

It is interesting how most people today point at political and religious fanactics and all agree that fanaticism is never good, while many here worship at the feet of a fanatic.

1. Equating Stallman's fanaticism for free software, with the popular view of religious fanaticism is nothing but trolling. He isn't violent and he doesn't threaten bombings or beheading.
2. Fanaticism in the sense that Stallman portrays it is a good thing.
3. Demonstrably some people disagree with 'fanaticism is never good'. The fanatics quite like the idea for a start. Non-violent fanatics are a good thing, if only to remind us where we could do better/go further toward a goal.

Alex.