FRAND And The Clash Of Industries

The largest forces in technology today – consumer-facing companies like Google and Facebook, business-facing companies like Salesforce, now even first-gen tech corporations like Microsoft and IBM – all increasingly depend on open source software. That means collaborative inter-company development of the software components and infrastructure technology these enterprises use for their business success. It’s enabled by the safe space created when they use their IP in a new way – to ensure an environment for collaboration where the four essential freedoms of software are guaranteed.

They use open source licenses to handle the copyrights and patents, community governance to handle trademarks and other patents and public benefit entities to protect everyone from everyone else. Each participant in the collaboration works at their own expense in order to achieve a shared outcome that benefits all, including themselves. When they create an enhancement, fix a defect, participate in a design, they are not “working for free” or “donating their work” so much as they are “participating in co-development”. It’s a new way to leverage IP for greater benefit than can be achieved directly monetising its scarcity.

Safe Spaces

The safe collaboration space depends fundamentally on equality of participation and transparency of behaviour within the safe space. Organisations like Apache, OpenStack, Cloud Foundry and many others go to great lengths to ensure transparency and equality, and have rules that exclude the possibility of participation by those who attempt to breach either. Seen in the context of a safe collaboration space, standards-essential patents (SEPs) are obviously a problem, and a FRAND licensing regime is obviously an anti-pattern for dealing with them:

  • SEPs are a problem because they create an implied threat that means every participant fears the future actions of the patent holder(s) as well as their potential future owners. Possessing a monopoly makes them inherently unequal. Moreover, the power it gives them perpetuates and magnifies that inequality, allowing them to exert influence even without contribution, something anathemic to open source communities.
  • Mandating FRAND is an anti-pattern since it guarantees that the patent holder will need private relationships with community participants. There will be no transparency either in the relationship or in the behaviour it consequently generates in the community. This undermines trust, since commits will be made or withheld on the basis of the private relationship and portions of the collaboratively-maintained software will be forced to be proprietary rather than shared, reducing the scope of the innovation and the quality that would otherwise arise from collaboration to magnify and perfect it.

As a result, existing technology collaborations eschew SEPs, apply licensing terms that severely discourage patent aggression and disadvantage those who attempt it. Far from being a sacrifice, this use of IP is arguably the dynamo of the technology industry, allowing startups and established corporations alike to rapidly climb upon the shoulders of earlier giants and deliver innovation. Web servers, smartphones, business automation, cloud computing and the sharing economy – to name just a few examples – all arise from the use of open source software and would probably never have happened without it.

Mutually Assured Control

But that’s not the case in markets where collaboration happens at the level of specifications and de jure standards rather than code and de facto standards, such as the telecommunications industry. Decades of comfort with SEPs and FRAND terms have resulted in a heavy investment in patents licensed in such a way that they create mutually-assured control. Telecommunications standards are so heavily encumbered with SEPs that patent pools and cross-licensing have become the norm. That in turn has created a barrier to newcomers that has made the telecommunications industry a cartel of giants.

The cartels of giants of the telecom and similar industries now see their mesh of complex physical technologies coming to a lifecycle point where software dominates. The rise of apps and smart devices for the user and of software-defined and implemented infrastructure for deloyers, means that there is more and more of an incentive to move in to the computer and software technology markets. This in turn has created an impetus to adopt the working practices of the ICT industry, which notably today means collaboration over shared implementation rather than just over mutually essential specifications. As a result, they seek to introduce open source into their business.

Picking Winners

That’s where the conflict arises. From one side of the divide come successful corporations who believe collaboration means safe spaces where startups and incumbents co-exist in mutual safety. From the other come legacy corporations who believe collaboration means creating a mesh of mutually-assured destruction that promotes progress for giants who’ve paid their dues.

These models cannot co-exist. To mandate a system where controlling patents are permitted in standards extends the effective monopoly of the legacy industries into the worlds of the Internet and ICT, to the detriment of the current competitiveness and innovation of the technology industry. On the other hand, to require that any patents in new ICT standards are de-weaponised would create a level playing field for participants while allowing everyone to collaborate using the open source methodology and the free software freedoms associated with it.

So will we create a new opportunity with policy instruments like EIF, or allow an existing industry to hobble another as the two collide? That’s the real question about FRAND terms for SEPs. Trying to force-fit FRAND into open source by mistakenly asserting it’s just a matter of compliance is sure to fail. Despite the name, FRAND is always discriminatory.

What Is An API? The Clue Is In The Name

Wild Webmink

At the end of my testimony in the recent Oracle v Google trial in San Francisco, Judge Alsup asked me to explain what an API is. My answer aimed to simplify the answer for a general listener while remaining recognizable to most programmers. Here’s what I said.

The Java source code of OpenJDK usefully follows a layout convention. Up front of each file is a copyright and license statement. After that come a sequence of definitions of the various standard functions that complete the Java programming language. Together, a set of related definitions comprise a class library.

Each of those definitions comprise three parts. There is a function declaration, which defines the name of the function and the order and data types of the parameters used by the function. After that is a comment block with a summary of the specification for the function, tagged to allow it to be…

View original post 319 more words

FRAND Is Not A Compliance Issue

The European Commission has been persuaded by lobbyists to change its position on standards to permit the use of FRAND license terms for patents applicable to technologies within those standards. This is a massive mistake that will harm innovation by chilling open source community engagement.

Continue reading

Thunderbird Evolving

Since December, Simon has been working on a report describing the options the leaders of the Thunderbird mail client community have for hosting their project now that Mozilla is ready to take the last steps of separation they have long trailed. The report was published today and is now being considered by the Thunderbird community. While it considers a number of potential destinations, it recommends a choice between the Software Freedom Conservancy, The Document Foundation and a new, arms-length status at the Mozilla Foundation. Continue reading

Launching TravelSpirit

We have been working with Transport for Greater Manchester for several months on a fascinating idea; an open source community for a Mobility-as-a-Service platform. The idea has finally emerged into the daylight as the TravelSpirit community. You are invited to apply to attend the launch event and take a part pioneering public transport for the 21st century. Continue reading

It’s The Daylight Twilight Zone again! Expect the unexpected…

If you, like us, have a mix of meetings with European and US residents, the next two weeks will inevitably involve some mis-timed meetings since the USA just started daylight savings time and Europe won’t do that until March 27th. One tip is to set an event in your calendar (or, better, a shared events calendar, which is what we use) marked “DST Twilight Zone” as a reminder that peculiar things are going to happen!

Daylight twilight

Community Credentials

Simon was surprised when he went to the Microsoft press release page looking for the news about Linux support for SQL Server and joining Eclipse. He found that the only press release related to Linux was about patent licensing. He’s written about it today on InfoWorld and expanded the thought on his blog.