Open letter to Spanish Minister of Industry

His Excellency Mr. Sebastián, Minister of Industry, Tourism and Trade, forgive us the frankness of our question, but with all due respect and consideration, are you really implementing your own vision of what should be the Information Society in Spain? In other words, is all that is happening, regarding Information Technologies and
Communication in Spain, direct result of your own policies?

These questions, Mr. Minister, that seem rhetorical, are actually important questions are bothering citizens with increasing frequency. In fact, we not only have these questions from the moment you, Mr. Sebastián, were appointed Minister of Industry, we have had them before you took office. Because actions of your government regarding Information Society in Spain, seem closer to the Jesuitic saying of “not a bad word or a good action”, than a true and strong policy directive accepted seamlessly throughout your Cabinet.

Let us substantiate the claim, by listing some facts:

First, during the procedure of acceptation of the Law for Promotion of the Information Society (LISI), as initial draft and then, in the Technical Advisory Council of the Society of Information (CATSI), Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society, Mr. Francisco Ros Perán, tried to impose the (in)famous Article 17bis against what was supported by your predecessor, Minister Montilla. This article enabled Internet censorship in despite of the Constitution and with independence of the judiciary power. Finally, the scandal, the social mobilization and the intervention of Mr Montilla, resulted in the exclusion of this legal aberration from the draft of the law. This important event, however, had no political consequences for its main culprit.

Second, during the procedure of acceptation of the LISI, pressures from Mr. Ros Perán prevented the inclusion of “Net Neutrality” principle into the law, which is basic to achieve the confidence and certainty for electronic commerce, for advancements of technological developments, for safeguarding fundamental rights of citizens in the Network and for carrying out a structural reform that Spain needs to address the current crisis. With Net Neutrality Innovative SMEs and professionals can compete in equal conditions with major telecommunications operators, providing their contents and services on line on their own. This overlook hasn't had or is having any political consequence.

Third, at the end of the procedure of acceptation of the LISI law, Mr. Francisco Ros again, vetoed the possibility of providing Internet access by local corporations as a public service, service that today would also be an immense help to overcome crisis, since the Internet is a basic infrastructure for the development of our economy. This veto could be compared with the ban of public roads in favour of exclusively private ones. Can you imagine a city only with private streets and toll booths on each corner? Can you imagine a city where the suburbs do not have paved roads because it is not profitable for the private sector? Such veto again, has had no political consequence.

Fourthly, for implementation of LISI law, it is clear that broadband is, and should be, a universal service. Once again, Mr. Francisco Ros, based on this consideration that this is not reflected into EU's laws as such (sic.), he argues that neither companies, nor governments, have obligation to comply with this law. We must add, that his Ministry, by the decision of his Secretary of State, is using a definition of "broadband" that is slantedly obsolete, more typical of the era of Bush (father) and of the reactionary ideas of the “Soto Commission”, that it is absolutely different from the definition used by the rest of Europe. While in Europe a line with less than 1 Mb/s downstream or upstream is not considered as "Broadband", the Spanish Government still considers as "Broadband" such ridiculous speeds as 256 Kb/s downstream and 128 Kb/s upstream. Surely something more adequate for Sub-Saharan Africa, than for a country, that it is self-defined as the 8th largest world power. If we add to all that we said before, the exorbitant asymmetry of our ADSL lines, to prevent that anyone be able to provide an electronic service through the contracting of a normal line of Internet, we have a situation which virtually prevents that any citizen can contribute to the Network, as well as any of our SMEs, and professionals, that can't provide an electronic service minimally innovative and competitive. This lack of application of Spanish LISI law has had no political consequence.

Fifth, recently, was removed from the broadband's Spanish legal regulation any reference to ADSL lines with speeds above 30 Mb/s. Again, this polemic decision was made by Mr. Francisco Ros. A decision that the government was forced to withdraw by the EU because it was a barrier to competition in the Spanish market. This hasn't had any political consequence either.

In summary, Mr. Minister, considering the aforementioned points, you give us the impression that some lobbyists are speaking through the mouth and facts of your Secretary of State, without considering that those interests are clearly opposed to those of the citizenship and the national economy. The problem is that it seems that these mark the policy regardless of your opinion. It is clear that your Ministry should impose a radical change of direction, and eliminate these pressures and diversions, directing its course to one policy that should be social, modern and progressive.

A new policy, that would encourage emerging business from SMEs and professionals, that would provide a quality access, and allow Spaniards to work and participate within the Network, contributing ideas and contents with the freedom that is taken for granted in a modern and democratic state.

Mr. Minister, you maintained clearly that "we will not apply any restrictions or regulation, that prevents any expansion, or discourage the use of the Internet, nor we will set limits to the tools that allow the free flow of information" because "This freedom is and has been the key of the net, the source of its growth and popularity." But the truth seems different. In spite of such noble words, there are black clouds over the horizon for Spanish civil liberties on the Internet. Are you responsible for those black clouds?

To quote Karel Vasak, first Secretary General of the International Institute of Human Rights "No rights have ever been achieved without a struggle, they have always been wrestled away from the established power.” But now we are jeopardizing our basic rights in its modern form, the electronic rights. Rights that were already established and enshrined in our constitutions since the Eighteenth century as freedom of speech, thought and conscience, and that the people won with blood, sweat and tears. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

The most worrying thin is, Mr. Minister, that your claims, so consistent with a truly modern and progressive politician, are not followed or implemented by members of your Cabinet such as Mr. Ros. As you can see, he appears to have ideas and projects completely opposed to your own… and the vast majority of Spanish citizens. However we have no doubt thatt Mr. Ros is a competent professional. We know what he is and has been. But we also know that he is not the best person for your cabinet because his policies are high risk ones. Risks that have been materialized in the last months. Let us resume the previous list:

Sixth, We have one of the most egregious examples in the consecration of an indiscriminate payment for the compensation of private copying (levy or tax) for copyrighted works. This money is ultimately distributed unequally and without any control, and among very few of the artists, mostly with contracts with large multinational entertainment companies. The method chosen constitutes a real tax, collected and managed by private entities, for what is the "paper" of our information era: the digital information media. If this had happened in Joannes Gutenberg's epoch and a fee ha imposed on each sheet of paper manufactured. What would have been of the Renaissance? Let us remind you that this "tax" for the transmission of knowledge, software and culture, has been established side by side with the Ministry of Culture. Mr. Minister, who has been responsible for this in your ministry? Is this the modern and progressive policy that your ministry wants to follow? If it is not the case, does it not deserves any political consequence?

Currently, there are values at risk that are very important for citizens and businesses. In particular, legal certainty. Especially needed is the certainty that online rulings are and will be clear, stable, and equal for all. Citizens must be assured that nobody is going be shielded by the "management" of the network, intellectual property or crimes and felonies, to criminalize the technology, or to take control of the Network, and eliminate Net Neutrality. P2P technologies suffered this kind of abuse in its day, and a similar thing happened with GPG / PGP cryptography in the U.S.

Let's be realistic Mr. Minister, far from being a security problem, the network has allowed, as with cases of child pornography, the detection and arrest of perpetrators of these offences. But this is not the only case in which the network is helping the justice. These kind of crimes, if perpetrated in the secretiveness of seedy clubs, or in the privacy of a closed group of "initiated", the guilty would be difficult to identify or to convict. "Out of mind, out of sight", as the saying goes. But, Mr. Minister, the problem is not within the technology or within the Web, it is entrenched in the society and in the society, in other words, within the real world, not within the virtual one, is the place in which we must take the corrective and preventive actions. The Network is no better or worse than real life, it is only a reflection of real life. The Network is not the origin and cause of crime, as neither is a knife, that can be used for cooking or for exercising despicable domestic violence. The problem is not the knife, it is the person wielding it and the solution lies in prevention rather than in banning all kitchen knives. If we place barriers on the Network, these criminals simply will look for other means. But you are hindering the main route communication and opportunity for innovation and for the generation of new business routes for Spanish people.

Seventh, and let us hope the last: despite the fact that you, Mr. Minister, insist that no changes are expected on the horizon of the Internet in Spain, it is true that your Secretary of State, Mr. Francisco Ros, hand in hand with the Ministry of Culture, continue pushing forward, along with major Spanish telecommunications companies, grouped as REDTEL association, an agreement with Collective Management Societies of Copyright that will again axe basic rights of the citizens, a curtailment of rights that would favour a minority pressure group that has a dubious legitimacy to reach such an agreement. An agreement that will be the milestone and a pretext for request a legislative change that would make illegal file sharing via P2P networks, something that today is absolutely legal in Spain. An agreement that, unfortunately, also would have large and negative consequences for culture and economy. In the economic sphere the agreemnt would be reflected in the response of the citizens, as has been warned in some papers by experts, asking for contract rescission of broadband services in mass, or at least, continually changing from one operator to another. This will affect infrastructure investment and thus, relegating Internet in Spain to the bottom of the list in Europe. In the cultural area, we would like to remind you, Mr. Minister, that the majority of the culture is public domain or public in nature, therefore it is not subject to any restriction of copyright. Unfortunately, the public culture, which for us is the real culture, is not to the liking of some because it is not easily sold. But with technological restrictions that are promoted by your Secretary of State, ther would be misappropriation of public property. For how long, Mr. Minister? How can you agree these kind of abuses that go on behind your back and promoted by members of your Cabinet? Do they not deserve any political consequences?

The truth is that, knowing that "there is only room for one captain on any ship" we do not understand how your Secretary of State, Mr. Francisco Ros, can be the person who is setting the direction, of the Ministry's (bad) policies in critical matters has been doing so for years. And doing so against the opinion of Ministers who have held your office before you, and against the minister who is leading now the Ministry, agains his own political party, and against the most of the social base that he is representing. We believe, Mr. Minister, that the decisions of your Ministry are very important to the economy of this country and much more in a time when crisis is holding on with steel claws to Spanish society. We remind you that you, Mr. Minister, are the one ultimately responsible to check the policy of your Ministry and thus, to obtain positive results.

Based on the above please, Mr. Minister Sebastián, we request you replace your Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society, Mr. Francisco Ros Perán as soon as possible with another professional who follows the political line that you have traced publicly in your statements in regard with waiving "any restrictions or regulations that prevent expansion, or discourage the use of Internet”, or “establish limits to the use of tools for free flow of information."

A significant part of the Spanish economy, innovation and civil liberties are at stake without replacement. It is essential for our economic, cultural and democratic development, that information infrastructures continue to enjoy full freedom in Spain.

Thank you very much in advance, Mr. Minister.

Parliamentary questions
11 February 2008
E-5911/2007
Answer given by Ms Kuneva on behalf of the Commission

The compatibility of any exclusivity contracts between Apple iPhone and telecom operators with laws on unfair commercial practices and unfair competition laws is to be assessed by the national authorities and courts. The Commission is aware that legal proceedings are ongoing at national level. The Commission has no enforcement powers regarding these rules and cannot intervene or give legal interpretations in individual cases under Directive 2005/29/EC(1).

Whether or not there is a violation of the EU antitrust rules laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty depends on a range of factual, economic and legal issues. Apple is not dominant in the market for mobile handsets. Likewise, the operators that distribute the iPhone in the UK, France and Germany are unlikely to be dominant in their respective markets for the provision of mobile telephony services to end users.

The compatibility of the current Belgian legislation prohibiting joint offers with Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices will be assessed by the European Court of Justice following recent requests for preliminary rulings (C‑261/07 VTB‑VAB v.n. v Total Belgium and C‑299/07 Galatea BVBA v Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV).

By 2011 the Commission shall submit a report on the application of Directive 2005/29/EC. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by a proposal to revise the directive. An impact assessment would precede any proposal.

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that other EU consumer protection legislation could be relevant in this context. In particular, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive(2) aims at preventing significant imbalances in the rights and obligations of consumers, on the one hand and sellers and suppliers, on the other hand. This general requirement is supplemented by a list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. Terms which are found by a national court, tribunal or administrative body to be unfair under the directive are not binding on consumers. The directive also requires contract terms to be drafted in plain and intelligible language and states that ambiguities will be interpreted in favour of consumers.

So, for instance, a contract term which has the object or effect of limiting consumer's freedom to choose a telecom operator may, in some cases, be regarded by a national court as unfair and therefore not binding on consumers.

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005.
(2) Council Directive 93/13/EC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts , OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.

Some hearing seems to have happened according to a user on an Apple iPhone forum:

Old 06-26-2008, 08:45 PM

User: Samab

The Belgium anti-bundling law will be gone soon. The appeal hearing was last wednesday at the European Court of Justice —- most likely the court will rule that the Belgium law is incompatible to EC 2005 directives.

If there was an appeal hearing in June 2008, it means that a prior judgment has been made.

Here is the question forwarded by the Court of Antwerp to the ECJ (Case C-299/07):

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 27 June
2007 — Galatea BVBA v Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV
(Case C-299/07)
(2007/C 199/36)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court
Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Galatea BVBA
Defendant: Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV
Question referred

Do Article 49 of the EC Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services and Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair commercial practices preclude national legislation, such as Article 54 of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 on trade practices and consumer information and protection, which — except in the cases listed exhaustively in that law — prohibits any linked offer by a vendor to a consumer whereby the acquisition, whether or not free of charge, of products, services, advantages or vouchers with which they can be obtained is linked to the acquisition of other, even identical, products or services, and this regardless of the circumstances of the case, and especially regardless of the influence which the specific offer may have on the average consumer and regardless of whether that offer can be considered in the specific circumstances to be contrary to professional diligence or fair commercial practices?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 may 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

Here is the question forwarded by the Court of Antwerp to the ECJ (Case C-261/07):

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 1 June
2007 — VTB-VAB NV v Total Belgium NV
(Case C-261/07)
(2007/C 199/28)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: VTB-VAB NV
Defendant: Total Belgium NV

Question referred

Does Directive 2005/29 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair commercial practices preclude a national provision such as Article 54 of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices, consumer information and consumer protection, which, subject to the exhaustive list of exceptions contained within that Law, prohibits any collateral offer by a seller to a consumer, including an offer in which goods which the consumer has to buy are tied to a free service, the acquisition of which is linked to the purchase of the goods, notwithstanding the circumstances of individual cases, in particular notwithstanding the possible influence of the actual offer on the average consumer, or whether, in the actual circumstances, that offer may be regarded as contravening the professional duty of care and genuine commercial custom?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

France (on behalf of the European Communities and its 27 member states) asserted that competition policy and its relationship to IPRs was both “important and delicate”, therefore they were of the view that it was appropriate for the Committee to “clarify the matter fully and to define what the problem consists of” and to adopt a “nuanced approach so that problems that do arise can be discussed to ensure that the cart is not put in front of the horse”.

So let's wonder what the cart is and what the horse is. We observe a tendency to mistake the IPR system for the horse.

"The treaty is alive, and we should now try to find a solution".

There is no doubt that there will be attempts to bypass the decision of the pools in Ireland.

The French Minister for European Affairs is saying the same:

In France, senior officials insisted that, whatever the Irish outcome, other European countries must continue their procedures to approve the treaty.

“The most important thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found,” Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French minister for European affairs, told LCI television. He did not specify what form this legal arrangement might take.

“We cannot take a country out of Europe that has been there for 35 years,” Mr. Jouyet added. “But we can find specific means of cooperation.”

It is clear that some decision makers will try to bypass the Irish vote.

by Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)
to the Commission

Subject: Use of the term 'ppm' in the computer imaging industry

A concern has been raised with me by a constituent regarding the use of the term 'ppm' (pages per minute) within the computer imaging industry for printer specifications. I am told that the use of the term 'ppm' used to market the product can often be misleading, as it often refers to the poorest quality of printing as opposed to a standard quality, which the consumer would expect. Moreover, 'ppm' does not accurately reflect the true number of pages that may be produced per minute, due to several other variables, such as the text used in the document and use of graphics, lines or other objects. This I am told results in the consumer purchasing a product under false pretences.

Can the Commission state what its view is on this? Are there any European regulations that prohibit companies from misinforming consumers in this way, especially in terms of the use of the term, the advertising of products, and descriptions of products' ability?

Answer given by Ms Kuneva on behalf of the Commission

There is EU legislation which protects consumers from the misleading use of technical terms relating to the performance of a product.

If a trader makes misleading claims concerning the number of ‘pages per minute’ which a printer should be capable of delivering, this may constitute an unfair commercial practice under Directive 2005/29/EC(1) on Unfair Commercial Practices (‘UCP’), which was adopted on 11 May 2005. UCP requires that traders operate according to the requirements of professional diligence and that they do not provide the consumer with false, untruthful or incomplete information on a wide range of elements including but not limited to the main characteristics of the product, its fitness for purpose, its specifications and the results to be expected from its use.

Moreover, the directive requires that traders provide such information in a clear, intelligible and timely manner: presenting factually correct information in a deceiving manner may also constitute a violation of UCP.

The new laws transposing the directive had to be applicable by December 2007 in the Member States. Despite the fact that the United Kingdom has not transposed the directive yet, some legislation should exist at a national level under the previous Misleading Advertising Directive. Under the latter directive, misleading statements regarding the specifications of a product and/or its performance may have constituted a misleading practice, based on the specific facts and circumstances of a concrete case.

However, it remains the exclusive competence of national authorities and courts to apply the national laws implementing EC law, including the Misleading Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

The Commission suggests that the Honourable Member's constituent brings the matter to the attention of the competent enforcement authorities in the United Kingdom(2).

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005.
(2) The contact details of a consumer association in the United Kingdom which may be able to give further advice on this matter: Which?, Castlemead, Gascoyne Way, SG14 1LH Hertford, United Kingdom, tel: (44-1992) 82 28 00, fax: (44‑20) 77 70 74 85, email: ku.oc.hcihw|hcihw#ku.oc.hcihw|hcihw, website: http://www.which.co.uk

Microsoft argues that the licensing terms demanded by the EC violate its intellectual property rights.

Let's bet that the Microsoft appeal to the ECJ is about patents. My nose is rarely wrong.

I take the bets.

Had you asked me in on that day in 1998 how far I thought this phenomenon would go, I would not have come close to predicting the success that exists today. As we enter decade one, Free Software / Open Source is mainstream. Indeed, we are the leader in many business computing categories.

Among the many achievements, he notes that

[w]e have actually changed the way that innovation happens. Innovation has gone public. Many companies, institutions, and individuals share innovation on a daily basis, entirely in the open, through Free Software development communities. The products they produce are the leaders in their field. Public innovation eliminates the high transaction costs of lawyers, lawsuits and licensing. It focuses on building a fertile community across the market for idea creation and utilization rather than dividing the market for the direct monetization of ideas as property. This is the economically most efficient approach for most companies.

He has a few choice words about Novell and more about Microsoft and points to the thread by software patents:

But Microsoft recognized software patents as the Achilles heel of Free Software. This is more evident today with several running patent lawsuits against Open Source developers. The JMRI case is notable since it is a software patent suit against an individual Free Software developer, and for its offensiveness: an Open Source developer's work, a Java Model Railroad Interface, was integrated into a commercial product, a model railroad throttle, and then the throttle's manufacturer brought a patent suit against the very Open Source developer whose work he capitalized upon. Without the fortunate participation of a pro-bono attorney, the developer would have been defenseless. We should note that the well of volunteer attorneys and defense funds for Open Source developers is all too finite.

There are kind words about us (Europeans ;-) Re: software patents

Only the Europeans have turned back the prospect of pan-Europe enforcibility of software patents through a political process. They have recently suffered something of a setback in a British court decision that disallowed the outright rejection of software patents by the British patent office. They expect that a version of the European Patent Litigation Agreement may be back under consideration by the end of this year, and that in its next form it will not go through parliamentary channels, and thus will be much more difficult for us to fight.

and indications that the fight against swpat in the US may pick up soon:

But where the Europeans have won so far, the Americans haven't even tried. Expect to see that change soon. One necessary tactic will be decoupling the case of software patenting from the system of patenting desired by the pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies literally have the best government they can buy. We don't want them in the argument.

Selden had a patent for a three cylinder motor vehicle that allowed George Selden to collect royalties from all American car manufacturers. The car manufacturers were paying Selden's holding company (Association of Licensed Automotive Manufacturers or ALAM) for the patent licensing rights to build cars.

The article further comments:

The patent was questionable, George Selden had never built a car.

An interesting criteria as also contemporary patent law does not require a proof of concept. Read the whole story on:
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsseldona.htm

And we found an article which argues:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_Henry_Ford_Fought_the_Selden_Patents

It was not merely to save? the royalty demanded by the Trust for the right to manufacture gasoline automobile under the Selden patents, for the enormous funds paid out in legal expenses by the Ford Motor Co., in fighting unaided and alone the Selden patents, would have paid the royalty on thousands of cars; but because Mr. Ford was an originator of the gasoline driven automobile, and build and operated cars …. the so called Selden patents; because he had spent a lifetime in developing the gasoline car and because he knew it was the product of his own brain and no man on earth was entitle to any "rake off" from that particular car.

Or the NYTIMES from 13 Feb 1910

Another chapter in the now famous Selden patent litigation, that has divided the automobile makers of the United States into the "licensed" and "unlicensed" camps, was provided last night by a statement from Henry Ford…

Now, you can see times didn't change much. For startups patents are still a pain and Ford still sells cars. Patents are as trivial, useless and dangerous for the industry as they were in the old times.

The full article is here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1003745

The general assembly of 2007 is a two-day event open to all FFII members (both contributing / non-voting and active / voting can speak their mind). If you have any questions about the assembly or your membership, please contact us. See also our membership site.

Location

iMatix, Rue des Ateliers 13-15, 1080 Brussels, Belgium

Active members and voting rights

Note: if you're not an active member (which is the case for most new FFII members) and think you should be, please notify the board and include appropriate references. We will make recommendations to the General Assembly, who will then decide on the upgrades. Any member can speak at the GA, but only active members can vote.

Agenda

Friday 30 November

• Warmup on Friday evening with various topics: speakers and discussions about various topics, to be detailed later.

Saturday 1st December

• 11:00-12:00: Kayak award ceremony
• 12:00-13:00: Lunch
• 13:00-14:00: Formal meeting
• 20:00-05:00: Party

Help

If you want to help for the organization of the General Assembly, you can subscribe here to the mailing-list.

Website

There is a website dedicated to the General Assembly 2007.

By: Con Zymaris <conz(@)cybersource·com·au>

Updated: 2007-10-10

Numerous industry observers have long-called for the adoption of policies by competition regulators which will spur competition in the personal computer operating system platform market - a market which has had a Microsoft choke-hold, gained through legally dubious business practices, over the past 20 years.

Now aligned with this group is an influential free-market think-tank, which has called on the European Union (EU) to make good on its promise to foster greater competition in personal computer platforms, in the aftermath of the recent court ruling which yet again found Microsoft abusing its monopoly power to diminish market forces. The think-tank, the Globalisation Institute, has called upon the EU to demand that PC vendors stop the practice of automatically bundling Microsoft operating systems with personal computers.

In doing so, the Globalisation Institute draws a distinction between open, free markets, which exist for computer hardware and demonstrate phenomenal innovation and price performance, and laissez-faire markets, dominated by the corporate equivalent of Somali warlords – specifically, operating system platforms.

In response, others have replied with reasons they believe would prevent such an approach from succeeding.
The following are the key arguments they introduce against the unbundling of Microsoft Windows from consumer PCs, along with an explanation as to why these arguments from the 'unbundling sceptics' are invalid:

Firstly, why should competition regulators even bother pursuing this?

A few years ago, I ran through a couple of scenarios which showed that the reduced competition in the PC platform software space cost consumers over $10 billion per year. More recently, a court-case in Europe showed an incredible 52% of the price of a new Acer laptop was constituted by the forced-bundling of Microsoft and other Windows platform software. It is also obvious that none of this additional expense for software would be necessary if Acer shipped Linux instead, because all the functionality delivered by the bundled software is available on Linux, at no cost. When you find that the price of Microsoft's software tax is more than the price of the computer hardware, you know it's time to act.

If nothing else seems to convince you that the personal computer market needs a competition boost, then all you need to consider is that one company, Microsoft, has had a 90-95% market share position for perhaps 20 years. What other large, hugely lucrative and business-critical markets do you know where one incumbent has that size of market share for that length of time? It is the surest indication that the free market has been waylaid and needs assistance. It's time to set the wheels in motion to stop this egregious aberration.

Why should Windows users support this proposal?

The mechanism for ensuring an open and free market for PC operating systems outlined in this document will have far reaching benefits for Windows users as well as the obvious benefits for Linux users. A cursory review of the history of the computer industry shows that consumers benefit most when there is strong competition in each market segment. Windows users will benefit because:

• Microsoft will become less complacent, due to increased Linux competition.
• Microsoft will become more responsive to customer needs, due to increased Linux competition.
• Microsoft will build better software, to compete with Linux.
• Microsoft will build more secure software, to compete with Linux.
• Microsoft will have to price its software to compete with Linux, meaning lower prices for Windows users.

It should be an obvious truism to anyone, that the only way to keep any vendor honest is for there to be another vendor breathing down their necks, vying for their customers. To Microsoft, Linux is that other vendor, and by letting it compete on a fair and level playing field, Windows users will benefit substantially.

You can go and buy an un-bundled PC today. Why should competition regulators push for all PCs to ship without Windows by default?

Most, if not all of the PCs you can buy without a pre-installed Microsoft operating system, are from what are known as 'white-box' or no-name brand PC makers. Generally, these are perfectly acceptable computers, but many consumers, certainly most businesses, will shy away from buying them. This then gives Microsoft a huge competitive boost in the market, as pretty much most of the computers that consumers or businesses will buy, they can only buy with a bundled Microsoft operating system platform.

Secondly, by limiting consumers who prefer not to run Windows to only those computers which ship without an operating system, you are limiting those consumers to a fraction of the potential range of computer hardware otherwise available. This is less than fair. Most systems, most options, most hardware innovations, are therefore not made available to consumers who want unbundled PCs.

Yes, these consumers could buy a PC with Windows and then wipe Windows, but then that means they are paying, as we note above in the Acer case, possibly hundreds of dollars/Euros, needlessly. And all this does is benefit Microsoft, essentially establishing a 'tax' on a product category - a category which sells over 100 million units globally every year. This is a vast distortion of the principles of an open marketplace.

What about the Apple Mac? Shouldn't that also have the OS X operating system unbundled?

No, for two reasons. Firstly, the Apple Mac is a product with hardware and software from a single vendor. If Microsoft wanted to sell a Windows PC that it itself made, then this also wouldn't be a problem. It would substantially tick off Microsoft's hardware OEM partners, but wouldn't be a problem from a competitiveness perspective. In fact, if that happened, there would be a substantial acceleration of hardware partners adopting alternative platforms, like Linux.

Secondly and more crucially, the Apple Mac doesn't have 95% market share, and the immense leverage that such market share delivers unto Microsoft. If Microsoft Windows only had 5% of the market, then there would be no pressure to unbundle it from consumer PCs. We wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

But Walt Mossberg said that desktop Linux still isn't ready for the average user.

The usability and technology world doesn't revolve around Walt Mossberg. Mossberg may have indicated that desktop Linux isn't for the average user, but it's also possible to find many pundits who will say that desktop Windows isn't for the average user either; that doesn't stop most PC makers from bundling Windows with their PCs.

In the end, it's all about what you're used to. Mossberg is used to Windows, so it seems more 'normal' to him. In time, people will, due to the increased uptake of Linux brought about by a liberated market, also find that it too is 'normal'.

But Dell (and others) aren't selling as many Linux boxes as they're selling Windows boxes. Doesn't that mean that there's less market for desktop Linux?

Yes, for now. But the market for alternatives to Windows will never be given a chance unless competition regulators force that market to be open and free to competition. The best and fastest way to do this is through unbundling Windows from PCs. If consumers still want Windows, they'll be free to elect to acquire it at the time they purchase their PC, but this should be through conscious decision-making, not through forced bundling.

But Windows only constitutes a mere 10% of the price of a PC, right?

Incorrect. In markets for lower-priced hardware, the cost of even the OEM (ie, cheaper) version Windows has reached 35% of the price of a new computer. What's more, each year, this percentage increases. 10 years ago, the operating system was only 5% of the price of the PC. When additional software, in fact the bare essentials for running a functional desktop, are shipped with Windows, this figure for bundled software reaches to over 50% of the total cost of a new PC, as evidenced by the Acer court case.

More importantly, the existence of a bundled copy of Windows on each PC affords the owner of the platform, ie, Microsoft, an incredible leverage not permitted any other software competitor. In fact, it gives Microsoft a beachhead through which it can sell office suites, server-based products which hook into that desktop operating system through proprietary means and dozens of other add-ons, in a manner which amounts to an unfair advantage over those competitors.

Ensuring that Windows is no longer the default operating system platform on all new PCs, will help those who compete against Microsoft by providing a market space opening to an alternative operating system platform, one that Microsoft doesn't or can't own. This means that unbundling Windows from PCs wont just open up the platform market, but all application market segments that Microsoft now dominates as well.

But there wont be any uptake of Linux unless there's a huge marketing effort

Incorrect. Linux grows in much the same way as the Internet grew, through word of mouth and general meme-transfer. The Internet, a technology developed by the same army of geeks who are now making consumer Linux a reality, has over 1 billion mainstream users. It gained those users without a marketing department, without sales people or corporate bosses. In time, Linux will do the same. Here's how.

If all PCs in Europe are now offered to consumers with the option of a free Linux desktop, then that will translate into a jump in desktop Linux adoption. If even 10% of these consumers take up the Linux option, that would translate into a doubling of desktop Linux users, in effect, hastening the onset of an inflection point.

In turn, this increase in users will spur more word of mouth, familiarity and comfort. It's likely that in successive buying cycles, a higher and higher percentage of new PC buys will opt for the cheaper Linux option - a positive feedback loop in platform migration.

Obviously, these consumers will be free to opt out of Linux, at any time, if they decide to return to Windows. All they need to do is pay the OEM licence fee to Microsoft. We'll cover how this works soon.

Removing bundled Windows will make PCs cost more as hardware vendors wont get volume/OEM discounts

Incorrect. By offering consumers a bootable copy of OEM Windows, manufacturers can continue to make available the lower cost (ie, OEM) versions of Windows. But consumers must still make that decision to pay for using this add-on.

If you think this puts Windows at a disadvantage, consider the following: Microsoft's operating system competitors have had to do this for decades while Microsoft stitched up deals with hardware vendors specifically designed to exclude them from the market. The old approach was unfair, this new approach puts every competitor on an equal footing.

Wont unbundling add complexity?

This notion can be encapsulated with what one pundit wrote:

It would also add complexity for end users, counter to The Institute's claims. People buy operating systems pre-installed with bunch of different applications beyond what comes with the operating system. Office productivity apps, security apps, you name it. An uninstalled OS would force users to find and download or buy those apps. That's an added and inconvenient step that would cost hours.

Obviously this person has never seriously used Windows, or for that matter, Linux.

Unlike Linux, Windows ships with an absolute paucity of high-function applications; from word processing, through accounting software, from graphics through drawing and technical tools, Linux beats Windows hands down in every area of pre-installed application functionality. If PC vendors shipped Linux on their PCs as a default OS that would be a huge reduction in complexity for consumers, as they would have access to thousands of high quality applications, either pre-installed or a few package-installation clicks away.

Consumers will not necessarily opt for the cheaper, ie Linux, desktop option.

Indeed. However, unless there is a space opened in the market for competitors to try and sell into, how will we ever find out? And yes, while more people know Windows, there are tens of millions now who also know Linux. Linux is fast approaching that first inflection-point. A move by regulators to ensure that there is a breathing-space for competition will likely see that inflection-point come sooner than later.

But if we don't ship PCs with pre-installed Windows, wont there be rampant piracy?

Microsoft has introduced a number of measures in recent versions of Windows which are designed to stop piracy of Windows. In effect, they have provided their own answer to this question.

But the market has spoken and the market said 'Windows desktops'. Why push this whole unbundling idea?

The market was severely distorted due to the fact that for the better part of a decade, Microsoft made deals with PC hardware vendors, specifically designed to exclude competing operating systems. Such deals were later shown to be illegal by the United States Federal Trade Commission in the aftermath of its 1995 antitrust investigation of Microsoft. This distortion was never rectified however, and governments who value free and open markets must now act through their competition regulators to bring about the kind of competition which will benefit their constituent consumers in the medium-to-long term.

But there's no one to support Linux

This is not correct. There are thousands of large and small organisations worldwide which provide support to Linux and free and open source software. More importantly, if the consumer who buys the new PC believes that there is no one who can support him in his purchase, then that consumer is more than free to opt to install Windows, acquire the Windows licence key from Microsoft and just use Windows.

How is it possible to provide for both consumers who demand Windows and also ensure a fair and open marketplace for competing platforms?

That's the $64 billion question, isn't it? Here's how it can be done.

All hardware manufacturers should ship personal computers with no pre-installed operating system. They should include within the packaging of the computer a media copy of the then current Microsoft Windows recovery CD. They should also include a copy of one of the main Linux distributions which are freely-redistributable at no charge.

Upon unpacking the computer, the consumer must then make a choice of either:

1. loading Windows from the Windows recovery media, then using the brochure included with the recovery media to contact Microsoft and through some form of financial transaction, acquire a licence to use Windows, or
2. load the Linux operating system from the CD/DVD included, and use it as their computer operating system.

Both the Windows recovery and the Linux installation media must be shipped with the new personal computer with a minimum of additional expense to the consumer. Specifically, it is of critical importance that the consumer receives the cost reduction advantages introduced by removing the licence fee for the bundled OEM Windows.

In order for this approach to work, Microsoft must agree to the free re-distribution of the Windows recovery media by hardware vendors. If it does not, then this will result in consumers only being given the 'out-of-the-box' option of installing Linux. It is therefore in Microsoft's absolute best interest to ensure that the Windows recovery media can be re-distributed and that the loading of Windows on the new PC is as fast and painless as possible. It otherwise risks more users defecting to Linux. As the Windows recovery media will also need a legitimate Windows licence obtained from Microsoft in order to actually function, there should be no additional piracy risks for Microsoft if they allow free re-distribution of the Windows recover media.

What about variations to this deployment method?

I've provided what I believe to be the least disruptive method of ensuring an open and competitive platform market, but other options are possible. Here are some:

1. pre-installing both operating systems, or
2. including no software media, but requiring the consumer to buy an operating system at the point of purchase, or
3. pay a service fee to the retail vendor and have them perform the operating system platform installation on request, or
4. requiring that the PC hardware vendor ship differently-installed computers, using different Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) codes, allowing the consumer to select whichever they prefer at purchase time.

Sure, these can be considered. However, the method I outline above, that of including two separate media packs and allowing the consumer to decide which one to insert into the PC at initial boot time, has certain implementation advantages. Specifically, these are that the consumer buys the PC they want to buy, without the added confusion of having to select a separate boxed product – everything they need will be shipped with the PC they've just purchased. Additionally, the retailers, resellers and e-tailers will not have to track or handle a multitude of additional PC vendor product codes and SKUs – they will merely have to know the one for each PC product, as they do presently.

The onus therefore falls on the PC vendors themselves to include media packs for the version of Windows they would otherwise have installed/imaged onto the PC product in question, and a media pack for a quality Linux distribution, commensurate with the market they're trying to sell into – one which has sufficient driver support to allow most of the core components of the computer (ie, video, audio, drives, network) to function correctly. Furthermore, the hardware vendor need undertake this Linux confirmation process once per product lifecycle, therefore, not a particularly onerous or expensive task for them to undertake. Once again, the main decision criteria for the distribution process outlined in this proposal is that it would cause the smallest additional overhead for the industry and the consumer.

But there are so many Linux distributions!

Yes, choice can be hard sometimes, but choice and competition is also what drives both free markets and innovation. Each PC hardware vendor must make a business decision as to which Linux distribution they are happy to work with and just provide support for that distribution. Obviously, they are most likely to include a distribution which a majority of their target market will find useful and appealing, else risk losing some market share to their competitors which would be doing exactly that. Competition is good for Linux distributions too, with the added bonus that open source code allows each distribution to share in the gains made by its 'co-opetitive' brethren.

But consumers are not tech savvy – they will not want to install an operating system

Correct. Which is why it is up to both the Linux industry and Microsoft to develop maximally simple installation processes for their respective operating systems. In fact, there should be open and strong competition between the two to create the simplest installation process possible.

The end user should be able to pop the installation/recovery media into the optical drive, reboot the new PC and maybe 10-20 minutes later, once the OS has been installed/imaged onto the PC's hard disk and the media disk has been ejected, they can reboot the PC into their selected operating system. Whichever of Microsoft or the Linux distributors can build the simplest installation/disk-imaging process, so will they have an advantage over the other for acquiring (or keeping) users.

But doesn't Linux lack in terms of driver support?

Depends on how you measure this. It can be demonstrated that Linux has broader driver support for older, more esoteric or legacy hardware than Windows XP. Linux certainly has broader driver support than Windows Vista. In general, Linux will support most/all of the major video, sound, disk and network devices and many of the wireless cards and web-cams. But yes, there are various consumer and business devices for which Linux driver support is lacking.

This may mean that not every function on every PC which ships with the software installation packs noted above, will function completely under Linux. It is therefore incumbent on the consumer to decide if they want that specific function, say a wireless card, or inbuilt web-cam, for their needs. And if they do, they can then opt to install Windows and acquire the Windows licence key from Microsoft. If, however, they decide that they don't need a functional wireless card or web-cam for which a Linux driver is lacking, then they can opt not to acquire Windows.

The beauty of this approach is that by opening the market and making it possible for consumers to make a choice about the operating system they will use, we are likely to see a jump in Linux usage. We are certainly not going to see a decrease from the monopoly market we have now. This, in turn, will spur Linux driver support from those recalcitrant component vendors. Which in turn will mean that in each successive buying cycle, there will be less reason for consumers to bypass Linux due to lacking driving support. Another virtuous cycle indeed.

Yes, great, but consumers still want Windows!

Fine. They can then opt to install Windows and acquire the Windows licence key from Microsoft. All they've lost is the maybe 10-20 minutes to install/image Windows onto the new PC's hard disk. In the grand scheme of things, when you incorporate the time needed to unpack the PC and cable it up, this isn't a big deal.

Why operating systems must be unbundled from PCs

Regardless of the final mechanism used, competition regulators worldwide must now take steps to increase the real competition for the consumer PC market. Microsoft has not become the biggest monopoly in history through competing on a level playing field. Only governments and national competition regulators now have the power to redress this gross imbalance. If governments don't do this now, then perhaps even they wont have the means to do this later.

Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document, provided this permission notice is preserved on all copies.

Original publication of the article "Why the Unbundling Windows Sceptics are Wrong"

Thirty years ago, a group of European states set-up the European Patent Organisation (EPO) as a seperate international organisation. "Separate" meant from the European Economic Community (EEC) - see www.efta.int.

Thirty years ago, there were many European states who were members of EFTA (the European Free Trade Area). The EPO - the European Patent Office - was designed to serve both EFTA and EEC members.

Thirty years ago, it was believed that the EEC did not have the legislative competence to set-up its own patent system through a Council Regulation.

But in 1994, the Council Regulation 40/94 created the Community Trade Mark and proved that the Community has the competence to set-up a patent system.

However, the fact that the EPO is a separate organisation has brought it the power of determining its own destiny, independent of what the political authorities of the European Union want the patent system to do and be. What we see within the EPO is a continuous struggle between those who want to steer the EPO towards the EU (and public accountability), and those who want to keep the EPO seperate, an independent entity that can determine its own future.

The existence of an EPO project to create a non-Community system of patent courts (the European Patent Litigation System) is proof - if any were needed - that the "independent EPO" tendency exists within the EPO.

Pressures from internal forces, and more importantly, external forces, are forcing the EPO to steer back towards the EU and a minimum level of public accountability. Internally, the dependency on ever more patents is stretching and breaking the examination system. Externally, the continuous pressure from the Commission and the FFII forces the EPO management to think twice before taking a decision.

For most people in the EPO, Munich is the centre of their universe, and the FFII is like Galileo, telling them that Munich rotates around Brussels, and not vice-versa.

Yet the centre of the EPO universe must become Brussels. Even though the EPO is currently a separate intergovernmental organisation with its headquarters in Munich, the policy regarding the patent system should be made in Brussels where the public is in some position to exercise control through the European Parliament. An EPO that tries to operate outside of public scrutiny cannot survive indefinitely: its internal stresses will get worse, political and public support will fall away, and eventually the calls for the abolition of the European Patent Organisation will be coming not just from the FFII but from mainstream political parties.

The future of the EPO is, of course, as the EU's patent agency.

As long as there is no official control by the EU on the EPO, and we need the personal determination of certain people in the Commission like Jens Gaster to remain on top of the issue of the Community Patent, it is important to maintain a high level of public scrutiny: if an organisation like FFII did not exist, it would have to be created.

The Register tells the story of a patent for flooring. Unilin filed its patent at the EPO, and when the EPO granted the patent, filed a patent in the UK, and used this patent to sue Berry and B&Q for damages. Berry and B&Q asked the UK court to halt proceedings while they went into opposition at the EPO.

Lord Justice Jacob ruled that the UK proceedings could move ahead, irrespective of the EPO's decision. Tough luck, he said, the patent system is a mess and it's better to force the loser to pay, even if the patents were invalidated, than to let such proceedings drag out. The two firms settled out of court after the ruling.

Apart from the eerie echoes of the RIM vs. NTP case, where RIM settled out of court to avoid being shut down for a handful of invalidated patents, Jacob's decision is significant for several reasons.

First, it may explain Jacob's apparent support for the proposed centralised European litigation system for patents, called EPLA. If it's acceptable, in his words “for a man to have to pay for doing what, with hindsight, we know to have been lawful”, in order to promote “business certainty”, then EPLA, with its focus on keeping the “customer” (the patent holder) happy, makes perfect sense.

Second, it demonstrates how firms are able to exploit slow EPO processes to blackmail competitors in national markets (where the action almost always is). The EPO puts great store in its opposition procedures. The theory goes: OK, we can't examine patents properly, due to the sophistry used in most patent filings. But the market has full ability to oppose bad patents! End of problem.

The EPO's opposition process is used to maintain the EPO's superiority myth. But close examination (sorry!) and the Unilin vs. Berry and B&Q shows that it's just one more loophole for clever lawyers to exploit.

Bill Gates probably noticed and read the website and our arguments, but he probably didn’t feel the drive needed to go for that presidential candidacy…We would like to thank all of you who tried to get this thing to work, and we hope we’ve inspired some people to think about the US Presidency in a way they never did before.

The reason is of course that Bill does not want to fix the US, but Europe is different. The EU-Commission is working hard to set up new Highlevel groups to get more advice and give foreign businesses more say. Microsoft and all other companies from abroad are very welcome and the Commission does its very best to keep Parliament and citizens away from policy making. Bill Gates is so interested in European policy matters. He thinks Americans should have a say in European patent policy. He believes that he needs to educate European officials about the future of EU patent policy because our European officials primarily serve American billionaires, that's their job

Bill Gates should be appointed an honorable Commissioner of the European Union because that reflects his role behind the scenes. Microsoft usually speaks of its government leaders. The world is injust, first Commissioner Kroes who awarded Bill Gates, did not meet expectations and all offers of Microsoft for kind cooperation were denied. And then the software patents debate, the Irish McCreevy failed. So much effort, so much support, so many flavours of civil society were created, still the ignorant European Parliament rejected the directive.

What's wrong in Europe and who will be able to cure them? Bill succeeded in the US, why not in Europe? What to do? More new lobby hats? No! Bill should become Irish and run for Commissioner.

P.S.: Just look at the agenda of the Presidency's Consumer conference. Who speaks for Consumers? Microsoft.

It is important to draw lessons for the future from the procurement process. The overall goal
of policy evaluation is to assist policy makers in improving their activities and in promoting
innovation. It is desirable that lessons learned be well documented and shared among public
procurement professionals and managers. A conscious effort would be needed for the
organisation to benefit from the experience.

And who will provide that kind assistance of help to the public procurement official?

Evaluation provides a forum in which public procurement officials and the
supplier community can review the effectiveness of measures to promote innovation.

Honi sont qui pense mal. The purpose is of course

Maintaining dialogue with the supplier is important for ensuring continuing innovation during
performance. It would valuable if the contract explicitly provides for this. Providing in the
contract for regular meetings and evaluations will, for example, ensure that there is enough
information to enable incentives to be applied properly. Moreover, supplier-buyer interaction
can be viewed as a learning process for subsequent contracts.

Intellectual Property? Hand it over to the supplier to get a cheaper price.

Where innovative goods are developed, intellectual property rights (IPR) may arise and an
IPR policy becomes essential. It is useful to decide how best to handle IPR and who should be
the holder. If government decides to keep the IPR, it will have to pay the price for exclusive
development, as the supplier can not re-use IPR. A supplier who can keep the IPR may
consider it to be an investment, a building block for other projects. This would normally be
reflected in a lower price for the purchaser.

The proper solution for a public authority would of course be to enable free use of their IP
by all market players as a level playing field, but handing it over to your supplier, that's a wonderful
and innovative idea to reduce your procurement costs.

As procurement and comparison of offers is so complicated why not leave it to external?

When using qualitative award criteria to foster innovation, it is important to be clear on how
to evaluate proposals against these criteria. A fair comparison of bids requires a skilful
evaluation committee. New innovative solutions are especially difficult to compare. In most
cases this will require a mix of experts, including lawyers and technical specialists.

It is essential to reveal the "buying center" to the supplyer for a supply-oriented innnovative procurement policy:

3. INVOLVE KEY STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS
It is important to ensure the active participation of all internal key stakeholders, throughout
the procurement lifecycle. In particular the users of the service, technical experts and legal
advisors should be involved. An early dialogue between these stakeholders is essential.
Ensuring that future contract managers have an input into the specification of requirements,
for example, helps ensure successful delivery, since the contract managers will ultimately be
responsible for ensuring that the outputs are delivered by the successful supplier.

Market research before buying? Let's better speak of technical dialogue because it needs two for a contract.

Like any other buyer, government ought to identify, via the technical dialogue or by other
means, what is actually available on the market, before deciding whether and what to buy.

Inform your supplier early of what you may want, so he can understand your problem.

Technical dialogue makes it possible to broach the views of the market before starting the
tendering process. If contracting authorities want to achieve broad market coverage, they
could publish11 their intentions to start a technical dialogue. Wide and timely publication is of
the essence. It gives the market the opportunity to better understand the problem to be
addressed and to offer optimum solutions. To ensure transparency, any information provided

Transparency? Oh yes, public procurement must be transparent for your supplier.

addressed and to offer optimum solutions. To ensure transparency, any information provided
by government during the technical dialogue would need to be circulated to any potential
bidder.

Not to the public at large. Of course only to bidders who want to see it early, but keep their privacy:

To allay any concerns of suppliers that sensitive information might be disclosed to
other parties, government can provide an assurance of confidentiality, stating that this kind of
information will not be disclosed.

OK OK. LET's STOP THIS.

My dear lazy busy Commission staff officials, please write your staff papers on your own. It could prevent you from "a learning process" and avoid "innovation" in procurement policy: parasitation.

Research Project on Intellectual Property Rights in Europe

The study aims to explain why in the first case the decision
making process followed the dominant maximalist rights
culture, while in the second case arguments of the proponents
of alternative regulatory modes have been heard. We assume,
that one reason for these differences might be found in different
actor constellations. Thus, our research focuses on actor networks
and we need to know as much as possible about the interactions
among the actors involved in these conflicts.

You can find more about it here: http://www.ipgovernance.eu/questionnaire/questionnaire.html

"BusinessEurope" comments on its history:

Following the chaos and disruption of the second World War, there was a fundamental need for a period of re-construction and co-operation in economic development throughout the continent. One aspect of this co-operation was the founding in 1949 of the Conseil des Fédérations Industrielles d'Europe (CIFE), and, within this organisational framework, the Union des Industries des pays de la Communauté européenne, begun by the national industrial federations from the six member states of the European Coal & Steel Community, initially to monitor this community. It was a natural evolution for this body to become the Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne (UNICE) in March 1958, to track the political consequences of the community created by the Treaty of Rome.

BUSINESSEUROPE strived for permanent liaison with official institutions, studied current problems, and co-ordinated responses, and always at a general "horizontal" level. BUSINESSEUROPE was never a sectoral organisation.

Now the organisation does not defend the interests of US software monopolists anymore,
but aims to 'boost Europe'. The name change comes at no surprise in a time of institutional uncertainty.

President Seillière at VNO-NCW Bilderberg conference

BUSINESSEUROPE President Ernest-Antoine Seillière and Secretary General Philippe de Buck, among more than 400 participants, attended the VNO-NCW Bilderberg Conference on 2 and 3 February to discuss how to do business in the Europe of tomorrow. It was an opportunity for President Seillière to underline the priorities of BUSINESSEUROPE and to stress the importance of a common business message in this period of institutional uncertainty.

And from the President of BusinessEurope's speech at the Bilderberg Conference, on a panel with the ex-Commissioner Frits Bolkestein:

In this context, my main aim which I intend to achieve during my presidency is to widen, clarify and render more forceful the communication and spheres of action of the organisation and to put all the efforts of BUSINESSEUROPE to make Europe the most competitive economy in the world.

One of the first steps is the change of name and logo which is from last 23 January BUSINESSEUROPE and why? Because BUSINESS, at the heart of EUROPE, creates growth and jobs, for the prosperity of the European citizens.

…, oh well. Between the lines it says that the old days are gone. Let's hope so.

Following the chaos and disruption of the …

Thus it seems likely that, if Schäuble’s efforts to codify online surveillance methods are successful, not only could German officials use malware to search computers outside of German borders, but the information …could be shared with agencies that also lie outside those borders – perhaps British, perhaps American.

and iterates the story of alledged NSA backdoors or cooperation that has little to do with the current Schäuble case as these backdoors would be directed against allied nations:

That possibility has led .. to speculate on the possibility of whether Microsoft may have worked in cooperation with the US National Security Agency to leave certain secret, exploitable “gaps” open to surveillance agencies. Microsoft and the NSA have raised suspicions, the online news service writes (in German), as to whether the security agency secretly and knowingly inserted “gaps” into Vista, knowing it could rely upon them later on. Such gaps, it was implied, could be shared with German and other European officials should Schäuble’s plan become law.

Which of course would mean that a German minister would tolerate American business espionage.

UPDATE 7:10 pm ET February 7, 2007 - A Microsoft spokesperson this evening responded to BetaNews' request for comment on this issue with a single sentence: "Microsoft does not build ‘back doors’ into the operating system."

Wallström: …If you want a more democratic EU, communication has to be among its core tasks. There should be a legal foundation for it: Fifty years after the founding of the European project, communication belongs in the constitution.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why?

Wallström: The EU lacks a story. For previous generations, the peace argument was a sufficient. But what story do I tell my 20-year-old son? How do I explain to him that we need the EU for the future?

Now, have a look at the Website of Margot Wallström.

(26/01/2007) "Wir haben eine Story für die Zukunft" (We have a story for the future), Interview with EU-Nachrichten, issue 18/2007

Was betrachten Sie als die wichtigste Errungenschaft der EU in den 50 Jahren ihres Bestehens?
Der Frieden – das ist immer noch das wichtigste. Das ist es, was wir alle auch für die Zukunft wollen in Europa, zumal die jungen Leute, für die Krieg etwas Undenkbares ist.

What do you consider as the most important benefit of the EU in its 50 years of existance?
Peace - that is always most important. That is also, what we all wish for our European future, esp. for young people, for whom war is unthinkable.

The EU needs a story, there are many insightful stories about the EU that must be told. Fifty years after the founding of the European project, real parliamentarian democracy belongs in the constitution. In a democracy policy fields are no matter of constitutional order but an expression of democratic majority preferences. Electronic media is an excellent tool for better communication as the Swedish Commissioner who also features a so-called Blog knows. The Internet is a public intelligence tool which makes it pretty hard for politicians to talk garbage.

For me time is a scare ressource. I prefer to spent it on listening to persons who have something to say, who have to tell me their story. Interesting EU stories are not rare. We talk a lot. Talk a lot about the EU. Yet, official communication policy often recurses to plain propaganda. Propaganda annoys us. Propaganda is useless communication for us. Our ambitious Commissioner disregards that we live Europe and we want pragmatic reforms for getting a better European Union, political balance, pragmatism, pluralism.

The real task is not to define what the EU did for us, but what we can achieve with the EU, and how we can raise our different opinions within that framework and how institutions can better approximate our will. Some important reforms ahead. Electronic media, access to knowledge, constitutional order and democratic reforms play a key role in this matter.