EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.19.10

Microsoft Lobbyists Corrupt the European Interoperability Framework to Marginalise Software Freedom

Posted in Free/Libre Software, Patents, Standard at 3:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Early assessments of the latest version of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF)

How good/bad is the final version (as in revision) of EIFv2? Well, it depends on who’s asked. Glyn Moody looked at the difference between the different versions, which the FSFE also highlighted in its Web site. They stood up against Microsoft EIF lobbyists. Microsoft Florian, BSA, and ACT, for example, were promoting RAND using the exact same lies about Free software. Moody, who was actively rebutting these people, says that “the lobbyists won, free software loses badly [in] #eif #eu” and he writes an article titled “the Great Defeat”:

Long-suffering readers of this blog will know that the European Interoperability Framework has occupied me for some time – I wrote about the first version back in 2008, and have been following the twists and turns of the revision process since.

These included the infamous leaked version that redefined “closed” as “nearly open”. Now we finally have the final version of EIF v2 – and it’s not a pretty sight.

[...]

This issue of whether FRAND or royalty/restriction-free should be adopted for open standards is one that I’ve discussed much in recent columns, pointing out that FRAND is not generally compatible with free software implementations. It might seem that the European Commission has come up with a nicely-balanced compromise by specifying that both FRAND and royalty-free are acceptable. But if you think about it, “FRAND or royalty-free” is identical to FRAND, because FRAND includes royalty-free as a stricter subset. The European Commission has simply mentioned “royalty-free” as a sop to those who called for it.

But wait, you might say, doesn’t it specify that even FRAND terms must be “in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software”? It certainly does, but that just means that it must be possible for some type of open source to implement the FRAND standard; it doesn’t say that all kinds of open source must be able to.

So, in practice, this means that FRAND standards that shut out GPLv2 software, for example, are perfectly acceptable provided other open source licences – of which there are many – can accommodate them. Once again, the European Commission has adopted wording that seems to address the concerns of the open source community, but which in practice gives FRAND fans exactly what the want: the ability to lock out GPLv2 code – still the bulk of the free software world – while complying with EIFv2.

Well, not everyone agrees with this assessment (there are many remarks in Identi.ca) and it’s claimed by a Red Hat employee that BSA and Microsoft are upset about this outcome. For some more background see:

  1. European Open Source Software Workgroup a Total Scam: Hijacked and Subverted by Microsoft et al
  2. Microsoft’s AstroTurfing, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, and Jonathan Zuck
  3. Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?
  4. The Illusion of Transparency at the European Parliament/Commission (on Microsoft)
  5. 2 Months and No Disclosure from the European Parliament
  6. After 3 Months, Europe Lets Microsoft-Influenced EU Panel be Seen
  7. Formal Complaint Against European Commission for Harbouring Microsoft Lobbyists
  8. ‘European’ Software Strategy Published, Written by Lobbyists and Multinationals
  9. Microsoft Uses Inside Influence to Grab Control, Redefine “Open Source”
  10. With Friends Like These, Who Needs Microsoft?
  11. European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Corrupted by Microsoft et al, Its Lobbyists
  12. Orwellian EIF, Fake Open Source, and Security Implications
  13. No Sense of Shame Left at Microsoft
  14. Lobbying Leads to Protest — the FFII and the FSFE Rise in Opposition to Subverted EIF
  15. IBM and Open Forum Europe Address European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Fiasco
  16. EIF Scrutinised, ODF Evolves, and Microsoft’s OOXML “Lies” Lead to Backlash from Danish Standards Committee
  17. Complaints About Perverted EIF Continue to Pile Up
  18. More Complaints About EIFv2 Abuse and Free Software FUD from General Electric (GE)
  19. Patents Roundup: Copyrighted SQL Queries, Microsoft Alliance with Company That Attacks F/OSS with Software Patents, Peer-to-Patent in Australia
  20. Microsoft Under Fire: Open Source Software Thematic Group Complains About EIFv2 Subversion, NHS Software Supplier Under Criminal Investigation
  21. British MEP Responds to Microsoft Lobby Against EIFv2; Microsoft’s Visible Technologies Infiltrates/Derails Forums Too
  22. Patents Roundup: Escalations in Europe, SAP Pretense, CCIA Goes Wrong, and IETF Opens Up
  23. Patents Roundup: Several Defeats for Bad Types of Patents, Apple Risks Embargo, and Microsoft Lobbies Europe Intensely
  24. Europeans Asked to Stop Microsoft’s Subversion of EIFv2 (European Interoperability Framework Version 2)
  25. Former Member of European Parliament Describes Microsoft “Coup in Process” in the European Commission
  26. Microsoft’s Battle to Consume — Not Obliterate — Open Source
  27. Patents Roundup: David Hammerstein on Microsoft Lobbying in Europe; Harrison Targets Lobbying on Software Patents in New Zealand, Justice Stevens Leaves SCOTUS
  28. Oracle Doesn’t “Go Bananas Over EIF 2.0” Being Subverted by Microsoft and Friends
  29. Inaction From Ombudsman/EU Commission Regarding Microsoft Lobbyists Derailing Public Policy
  30. The Difference Between Florian Müller and Hugo Lueders (Pro-Microsoft Lobbyists)
  31. BSA, ACT, and Other Microsoft Front Groups Still Try to Shoot Down EIF in Europe While Promoting Software Patents
  32. Free Software Proponents Expose the Microsoft-Funded (F)RAND Lobbyists and Their Lies, Microsoft to Lobby Directly in SOSOCON 2010
  33. Battling the BSA Hydra – Interpretation and Spanish Translation

The head of the FSFE responded to the EIFv2 on various occasions and then wrote about it in his blog:

Yesterday, the European Commission finally published the new version of the European Interoperability Framework [pdf]. We at FSFE have been working on this document for a long time. When it was published yesterday, we gave it a welcome despite some reservations.

Glyn Moody points out a number of weak spots in the new document. Actually, I’m concerned about many of the same points as he is. Still, I don’t agree with his judgement that EIFv2 is a “great defeat”. The document would certainly have been a lot worse without the hard work of FSFE and others. Even though it leaves some key issues open, it represents some progress.

Whether to welcome EIFv2 or not is a question of what you take as a baseline for comparison, and if you view the document isolated or in context. A lot will also depend on how the EIF is implemented.

But let’s take the issues in turn.

His conclusion:

So what we have now is a strategy statement, without the level of detail that made EIFv1 such a useful document. But this strategy generally goes in the right direction, and it’s much more powerful than before, thanks to its official status.
I’m guessing that the change we’ll see across Europe will be slow, but that it will be continuous and very broad. EIFv1 provided a rallying point for those member states and public bodies that were interested in Free Software and Open Standards. EIFv2 is a general push for everyone to use more Open Standards, even though it contains generous get-out clauses.

On the whole, we welcome EIFv2. It’s not everything we wished for, but it’s far better than we feared. We’ll watch its implementation very carefully, and will nudge it along where necessary.

Here is a page in question and related feedback from the FSFE:

  • FSFE welcomes revised European Interoperability Framework

    The European Commission today published its long-awaited revision of the European Interoperability Framework. This document aims at promoting interoperability in the European public sector. The document is the result of a prolonged and hard-fought process. Free Software Foundation Europe accompanied this process and offered input to the European Commission at various stages.

    “During the history of the EIF, we had reason to worry that Free Software would effectively be shut out of the European public sector. FSFE has worked hard to prevent this, and we have succeeded,” says Karsten Gerloff, FSFE’s President. “With this document, the Commission shows that it is willing to lead. We will support and accompany the EC in this effort.”

  • Freedom to compete: Fixing software procurement

    On Tuesday December 7, we issued a press release about a contract awarded by the European Commission, under which the EC and other European institutions will spend up to 189 million Euro on proprietary software and related services. We are of the view that in issuing this contract, the EC has once more failed to live up to its own guidelines and recommendations about the use of Free Software and Open Standards, and has missed an opportunity to open up software procurement to competition from Free Software companies.

Mark Bohannon, the Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Global Public Policy at Red Hat, says in a Red Hat-owned site that “European Interoperability Framework supports openness” and to quote the ending:

Is the new EIF perfect? No. Due to heavy lobbying by vested proprietary technology interests, some key sections of the EIF have been made confusing (indeed, the definition of ‘open standards’ has been watered down from the 2004 version and no longer includes the requirement of being ‘royalty-free’). The definition of “open” standards or specifications remains a matter of some contention in the IT industry. An example of a more accurate definition of open standards can be found in the recently released India Standards Policy for E-Governance, which specifies that intellectual property should be licensed royalty-free and that any required specifications should be technology-neutral.

While the new definition does not give the open source and open standards community all it would have wished for, and some will certainly criticize the result, the EU’s policy should still be applauded as an overall statement in favor of openness. At its heart is a reaffirmation of openness and the recognition that open source is not only a key element of – but also a growing factor in — Europe’s IT agenda.

Red Hat and the open source and open standards community will continue to work for royalty free IPR licensing policies that level the playing field and promote consumer choice. Given this latest announcement in EU policy, the open source and open standards community will have to be vigilant to ensure that this policy is implemented in a meaningful way and achieves its true goal: interoperability, vendor choice, portability, collaborative innovation and competition in providing products and services.

Simon Phipps’ comments can be found in Identi.ca but also in his blog summaries, e.g.:

Landmark publication of the European Interoperability Framework by the European Commission. Of course, this is only guidance, and the political context is very complex as evidenced by the language around “FRAND” and patents. Let’s see if they can stick to this better than they can stick to their own procurement guidelines.

[...]

As if to provide caution for those welcoming the EIF publication, FSF Europe continues its very rational and well-argued assault on the European Commission’s failure to follow its own rules.

All in all, there is no consent here. There appears to be agreement that the EIFv2 could be better, some F/OSS advocates are reasonably satisfied, but RAND still managed to find its way into EIF. In a way, the mobbyists and lobbyists got their way.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

3 Comments

  1. twitter said,

    December 19, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Gravatar

    Confusion is the surest sign of defeat. If there is enough confusion there will be no change.

    The FSF has explained how “RAND” discriminates against free software, but it should be obvious that software that can not be distributed without permission is not free.

    The real test of defeat will be when state agencies continue using Microsoft fromats in public documents. That will prove that this framework fails to even provide interoperability, let alone software freedom, and represents no change. Microsoft’s new phoney open document formats are even worse than their older binary formats but these are what Microsoft wants allowed rather than be forced to implement real standards like ODF.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    OOXML was promoted with RAND. EIFv2 does not exclude RAND. I think we know what that means. I will write more about this later.

  2. twitter said,

    December 21, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Gravatar

    Groklaw has unearthed a Novell/Microsoft agreement that is particularly damning for OOXML as an interoperability format. Microsoft’s Statement of Work for Novell considers Novell a “first-class” implementer of OOXML with special access that no one else will enjoy. The final “milestone” is “Novell OpenOffice can save files containing-Novell-specific features using the Open XML standard.” Almost all of the other goals are of the form, “Novell OpenOffice can open Microsoft Office 2007/2010-generated Open XML files without failures; M[1-4] features supported; unsupported features are lost on open.” So, even this “first-class” implementer will be unable to really use OOXML and anyone that makes the mistake of working with that format will be tied to specific versions of a program from a single vendor, Microsoft. The company refused to use a real open standard and should be shunned by governments that are interested in real interoperability.

What Else is New


  1. Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

    A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system



  2. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  3. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  4. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  5. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  6. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  7. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  8. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  9. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  10. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  11. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  12. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  13. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  14. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  15. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  16. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  17. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  18. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  19. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  20. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  21. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  22. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  23. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  24. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  25. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  26. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  27. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  28. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  29. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)



  30. Journalism 101: Do Not Believe Anything That Benoît Battistelli and the EPO's Management Say (Also Don't Fall for the UPC Hype)

    A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they're wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli's department)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts