What is less clear from his article is the stakes at risk and the direct and indirect impact of the issues on the UK economy and public finances.
P.S. Andy Hopkirk has commented on the meeting referred to in Mark's blog. He was the facilitator and is in a position to give a more balanced acount of what was said
Until recently I had thought that when your patented or
copyrighted "solution" became an International Standard you had to make your intellectual property rights freely (and I mean "free") available. I do not know when that changed but changed it has - with a vengeance. The fees now expected appear to be not just those necessary to fund the various standards bodies. The
royalties on proprietary standards are big business. More-over it appears that "access"
may also be restricted in order to "encourage" the use of products and services from the proprietor
and their licensees. It is this situation which lies at the heart of the controversy over the Cabinet Office position. The battle lines are emerging but are we about to see World War 1 style trench warfare or Sitskrieg followed by Blitzgrieg. And how solid are the alliances on either side?
At this point I would like to ask a few "political" questions.
How many are employed in the UK by those seeking to block the use of non-proprietary open standards and/or to prevent the collection royalties from the use of proprietary standards based on software patents that are not recognised under UK law?How do the fees to lawyers, lobbyists, patent trolls and those who own copyright in works they did not originally create, finance or bring to market, compare to the rights-owners spend on encouraging UK-based creativity.
In short, how do the net fund flows affect the UK balance of payments and economy.
Now let us move to questions on the more direct impact on public finances and quality
of service: equally important at a time of economic crisis.
How much UK tax do the royalty collectors pay?
How much taxpayers' money would be saved by a move to open
In looking at the sums at stake we should not forget the Search Engine market. Last week I attended a PICTFOR meeting on Search Neutrality. Unfortunately I had to leave early but not before my eyes had been opened to the way that the some of the main engines are no longer neutral - the results are adjusted to promote links to the products and services of the proprietor and lead advertisers. In consequence you may have to wade through several pages of dross before funding the entries most relevant to your actual search. I have since experimented with a couple of mapping and price comparison searches. I immediately realised the truth of what had been alleged although I also came to realise that at least part of the debate is a proxy war between past and current dominant players .
Some years ago I remember being referred to an article on how the great anti-trust suit United States versus Terminal Railroad Association of St Louis, which prevented those who controlled the railway marshalling yards from leveraging that domination to control road haulage from the freight depots, should be used to prevent those with similar control over key Internet resources, (such as peering centres, browsers or search engines), from using it to extend their control into application markets. I no longer have the link on file and could not find it. The subject appears taboo and the search engines of today could not find it. The relevant chapter of the Antitrust Review of America 2012 does not cover such issues.
The long-term consequences of that case, which rumbled on for decades, were as disastrous for the railroad companies as they were beneficial for the United States economy as whole. We should not under-estimate what is stake behind the emerging debates over Internet Governance. As I suggested in my blog entries on the Big Information Society and in my response to one of Ian Grant's bouts of paranoia, these can be seen as a proxy for using the enforcement of current Intellectual Property Rights to progress the surveillance agendas of the benevolent (or otherwise) elected (or otherwise) dictatorships that now rule most of the world (West as well as East).
Given the current state of the UK economy it is critical
that we do not allow ourselves to become a victim of a cold war may be about to burst into flames. Whether or not it is in the long term
interest of most shareholders, that war is one of the few current sources of new business
for global law firms and for military software contractors faced by declining meger and acquisiaiton activity and cuts in defence spend.
Instead I owuld argue that we need to position the UK at the heart of the innovation revolution - using IPR reform to unleash and encourage, but also to reward, a new torrent of creativity. The HMG consultation over Open Rights policy, boring though it might seem, will be the first indicator of whether UK plc is likely to be among the victims or among the victors as Brazil, Russia, India and China approach such issues with midsets similar to those of the UK in the 18th century and the US in the 19th century.