decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Berkman Center's Video of the ODF Conference - Updated
Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 02:12 AM EDT

What a wonderful thing it is to be able to witness an event with your own eyes. I earlier put up a link to Dan Bricklin's audio of most of Friday's meeting on ODF and open standards. But the Berkman Center, which hosted the event at Harvard, now has video of the entire discussion which you can find on this page (.rm). Or here's a direct link to the download.

Here's what is fascinating to witness. Morgan W. Reed, Vice President for Public Affairs of the Association for Competitive Technology, showed up with Microsoft's talking points. Coincidentally, I'm sure. The looks on the faces of the panelists as they listen to him go on and on about the evils of ODF to small computer firms was a sketch. You don't see him, only hear his voice from off-camera, so you watch instead all the panelists politely gazing his way with a look it's hard to put into words.

Now, this was an invitation-only event, so somebody knew who they were inviting. And indeed, when Mr. Reed starts off with a description of his group, stressing all the little people he represents, the moderator asks if the association is small players only, and he fesses up that Microsoft is a member too.

Here's how ACT describes the organization:

"The Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) is a national education and advocacy group for the technology industry. Focusing on the interests of small and mid-size entrepreneurial technology companies, ACT advocates for a 'Healthy Tech Environment' that promotes innovation, competition and investment. ACT has been active on issues such as intellectual property, international trade, e-commerce, privacy, tax policy and antitrust.

"ACT represents nearly 3000 software developers, systems integrators, IT consulting and training firms, and e-businesses from across the country. While ACT members include some household names like eBay, Orbitz and Microsoft, our members are primarily small and mid-size companies."

The organization certainly was active on issues like antitrust. Can you guess on which side? Of course, we here at Groklaw remember ACT from an article back in March of 2004, when there was an editorial by an ACT guy scolding the "anti-Microsoft cabal" for not realizing how wonderfully the antitrust settlement was working out:

"Sometimes people simply refuse to see the light. . . .

As it waits for an appellate ruling, this anti-Microsoft cabal is arguing that the company is shirking its responsibilities and the settlement is proving completely ineffectual. If only they would take off their blinders, they would see that this case has drastically changed the industry and that competition is healthy.

"From the beginning, it was clear to virtually everyone that the settlement was in the best interests of the industry, the economy and consumers. The agreement removed the cloud of government regulation that had been hanging over the entire industry and sent the message that it was time to focus on innovation and competition, instead of regulation.

Ah! Microsoft light. Here's an article from June of 2003 by the attorney for ACT, writing about the SCO case and all the "problems" the case highlighted about Linux development that would hold back Linux in the enterprise unless addressed, like indemnification:

While I am optimistic that these adjustments can be made, it may expand the growing rift between those who see open source as a moral, if not religious movement, and those who see commercial opportunity in this alternative development model. For example, the Free Software Foundation believes that no piece of software should ever be "owned." It is clear that IBM, Red Hat and others that are interested in developing sustainable open-software-based businesses must find ways to coexist with proprietary software.

However, it is unclear to me how the corporate community can continue to work with those who reject the entire principle of software ownership and simultaneously protect their investment in their own products.

It's comical to read now, because the dire predictions that businesses would decide not to use Linux because of SCO proved to be mostly just a SCO, or Microsoft, fantasy. Yes, Microsoft. Some have accused ACT of being a front for Microsoft, but Mr. Reed was very clear that he represents most particularly the little people, software developers working in their garages who haven't seen their wives in weeks, I believe is the way he puts it. Microsoft may be a member, but his real interest is the small developers. Uh huh. Here are some pearls of wisdom [PDF] from the President of ACT, called "Prevent Antitrust Suits from Undermining Intellectual Property Rights and Stifling Innovation":

The DOJ/FTC's Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (1995) have recognized the complementary purposes of the intellectual property and antitrust laws. Despite this, competitors and some regulators have recently sought to use antitrust suits to force IPR holders to give up control over their protected works, as in the recent Microsoft case where several state Attorneys General proposed that Microsoft be forced to publicly provide the source code to Internet Explorer free of charge. Similarly, European regulators have shown increasing willingness to subject protected works to a compulsory license regime because of alleged competition concerns.

See what I mean? Maybe they aren't a front for Microsoft. Maybe they just happen to agree on absolutely everything, and just happen to talk like each other too.

Anyway, Mr. Reed tries to dominate the meeting with his deep and abiding concerns about ODF. What do you want to bet he or his other brother Darl shows up Monday to share his worries about ODF with the committee, on behalf of all those little people, of course. They are inspirational, I'm sure.

These tapes are beyond fascinating. It's one thing to read this stuff, but to see it in action is far more affecting. The moderator had to do his little moderator dance eventually, although very subtly, to let anyone else have a chance to speak from the audience. If ACT is a front, I'd say Microsoft got its money's worth.

Take a look and form your own impression. Thanks to the video, you can. I expect we see a preview of some of the points that will be made on Monday. And if you are going, note that I'm told that anyone is allowed to tape. That doesn't mean I'll be able to get permission to show it on Groklaw, but I will try, and at least we'll be able to take accurate notes, if nothing more. Bricklin says, as always, that if anyone wishes to make an Ogg file of his recording, he's happy to put it up also on his site. I was curious what Dan uses to do his recordings, so I asked him.

Here's his answer:

I recorded this by getting permission to connect my MP3 recorder directly to the sound system. They had a mixer board with lots of outputs and I have an adapter (Shure A96F) that can go from that into the "line-in" input of my recorder. For this one I used a Roland R-1 recorder, recording directly to 64Kbps for direct posting to the web. I used my ListGarden (GPL) program to create the RSS feed and a companion HTML page. For the Mass ITD meeting I also connected to the sound system, but used an iRiver iFP-890 256MB flash MP3 player/recorder, recorded at 192Kbps and downsampled to 64Kbps with Adobe Audition, exported to MP3, and used Audacity to make the Ogg version.

Connecting to a good sound source is quite important for making it easy to listen to these meeting recordings. Just having a mike in the air, especially with low-res recording like you often get on an iPod (not the iRiver, though -- it is not low res), makes for a recording that works for reminding you of what was said but not the type of thing someone jogging or commuting will find easy to listen to. For future meetings, I bought a Shure wireless mike setup. They make a variety of good ones. (I got a cheaper one.) The pros seem to use the expensive ones and like the Beta 87A heads (they are more directional than the still-directional 58-based heads they tell me). I used a limiter on the Roland so that you don't get clipping when someone talks too loudly. For the Allaire meeting I posted on my blog, I used the Roland with a free-standing mike clipped to a stand about 5 or 6 feet away from the people talking. The mike was a cardioid lavalier (Audio-Technica AT831B) connected through the adapter (which converts XLR plugs to 1/8" plugs and matches impedance or something) to the Roland.

A "complete" meeting recording system would include a recorder of some sort, cables for connecting to whatever you find (XLR, 1/4", and 1/8" to your recorder input), a wired mike (directional when needed to complement the builtin omnidirectional one your recorder probably has), and an optional wireless handheld to run around with or pass around like I did for the OSS SIG and Mass ITD meetings.

My choices of equipment are relatively random and do not necessarily imply that I've researched the field.

UPDATE:

For those who prefer a transcript, here's is one portion of Mr. Reed's comments, his opening remarks:

Morgan Reed: I'm Morgan Reed Association for Competitive Technology. We represent about 3,000 *small* guys and overarchingly I'd say that there are a lot really good points in the . . .

Moderator: Are you an only small, what's the...

Reed: We have the, we have a full, full range. We have big guys but our primary, our primary voice is small.

Moderator: And you're talking about software?

Reed: Small integrators, vendors, um, it's the guys who are looking to make the new product as well as the guys who make sure that the law firms work.

Moderator: Open, proprietary, whatever?

Reed: The whole works. Yes, we go all over, from two guys in a garage to Oracle, E-Bay, Microsoft, Verisign and Orbits (although now they're Ascendant). The full range, but our primary core membership and the people who make my phone ring at night are the small guys in their garage who haven't seen their wives in six weeks.

When this initially was announced, the biggest concern that they had was it seemed 1) to be an elimination of choice, that from their perspective (and these are my friends on the Open Source side too) was all of a sudden you went in from a position of being able to argue the technological merits of what you were doing. If you were an integrator, if you built a product for, say, 30,000 government employees that glued different pieces together. You were now restricted from doing a value added. Say I take this format and this format. There was a question of loss of choice, was the first merit.

The second part was a confusion as to what it meant in terms of why is PDF, um, how does this work because there was the feeling there was a continuum of intellectual property rights. What does this mean for me? What if I innovate on it? What if I create this new idea? And then the last big complaint was a feeling that (and you said process) but I just want to identify where the three things are, choice, innovation, and a feeling that it was untested. There were concerns . . .

Moderator: The format in particular . . . ?

Reed: . . . of format in. . . Yes, the format, it was completely untested, that none of the small integrators had been rolling out had yet even rolled out this solution in terms of marrying various document formats together. There was a feeling that there, they had no proof of concept. There were some enormous training costs that there were going to be, that they had to deal with. And again, you pointed out earlier, you know, this question of guys complaining that their business model might be out. But, that's easy to say and just wing off. But it's actually, when it's people's jobs, and it's people's livelihoods, I think it's flip to say that. But it actually has some practical, there are some practical considerations that you have to consider.

The transcript is from 23:15-25:55.


  


The Berkman Center's Video of the ODF Conference - Updated | 65 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Correktions Hear
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 02:19 AM EDT
As if.

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Correktions Hear - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 12:03 PM EST
OT Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 02:22 AM EDT
Remember to read the red notes and the black notes under the Comment: text-entry
box, check your work, and post in HTML Formatted mode.

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bill, Kevin and the other brother Darl
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:01 AM EDT
I'm a big Bob Newhart fan and I thought most every one had forgotten Larry and
Darryl and "my other brother Darryl". I really did laugh out loud.

On a more serious note I wonder how many of the small and medium sized
developers are Microsoft development partners. I wonder if they got something
for joining or if they did it for the same reason people hire Tony Soprano to
pickup their garbage.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Berkman Center's Video of the ODF Conference
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 04:33 AM EDT
1) Is there a MS-'newspeak' dictionary somewhere? I think the need for that
grows is more and more.
2) is there a list of MS-sponsored 'citizens groups', preferably with assumed
and suspected goals?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Berkman Center's Video of the ODF Conference
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:13 AM EDT
Am I missing something. Surely it is not the open document format itself that
reduces inovation. This is just a means to communicate when all said and done.
Because today there are many governments around the world with organisations
that prompte competition and reject some large companies taking over others to
expressely keep inovation going and stop one company dominating. It happens in
all industries and therefore in not unique to the oftware industry.

Surely the inovation and creativity (not the actual writting or generating of
the document or the format that it is stored in) are in the way the software
creator actually gets the software to carry out the work.

Therefore why is there so much who har about the file format. Surely the
format the file is store in, so it can be read by anyone does not matter. OH I
forgot, If I can lock everyone into a file format that is mine I can claim
royalties, patent protection and make lots of money.

Such a file format therefore locks other companies out as well. I am firm
beleiver that there are many out there who can provide very inovative software
if only they could make it popular as they have to use a file format that they
can not get access to. Surley this flies in the face of any argument that the
ODF will stifle inovation.

I just can not see how those who oppose the ODF can say that by adopting the ODF
will stifle inovation.

Have we lost the plot?

GRS

[ Reply to This | # ]

ACT in Europe
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:42 AM EDT
Of course we know ACT in Europe too through the efforts of Jonathan Zuck, the man Der Spiegel sarcastically described as having "all the charm of a used-car dealer".

Fortunately they don't appear to have been the most influential of channels, either in favour of software patents, or on behalf of Microsoft in EU vs Microsoft

- JHeald. (btw: is the login system broken?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Berkman Center's Video of the ODF Conference
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:46 AM EDT
Ironic isn't it: a video of a meeting about open standards, encoded using a
proprietary standard (.rm).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Berkman Center's Video of the ODF Conference
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:06 AM EDT
Until I have proof of its independence, the ACT is Microsoft's organ grinder's
monkey and Microsoft calls the tune.

If the ACT claims to be independent of Microsoft, then I want to hear ACT
substantiate this claim by listing the issues that ACT and Microsoft disagree on
and describing the nature of the disagreement - and those issues must be key to
Microsoft. My little finger tells me that the ACT will flunk this particular
test.

The ACT should have no trouble sharing their membership list with us - We will
draw our own conclusions regarding whether their claim that they represent
software developers who work out of their garages is so much puffery.

Likewise, the ACT should have no trouble disclosing from whom they are getting
their funding and how much. We will determine their degree of independence from
Microsoft on our own.

Personally, I assign the same level of credibility to both ACT's claim that they
represent small and midsize companies, and any claim from my cable operator that
he is not a greedy, monopolizing bastard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Monday's meeting - best result is to have lots of concerned citizens!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 08:02 AM EDT
Monday's meeting - best result is to have lots of concerned citizens!

I can't go... to far away... but, it seems that to let the political process
know that Open Standards is the way to go we need to:

- have lots of people there (that know what to say)
- have a way to show common unity (common bottons etc)
- give away open office 2.0 ODT (for all OS, to everyone)
- give away Up to date Live CD with Open Office ODT
- Have a number of laptops set up outside with demos of ODT

any other ideas?

Can anyone execute these ideas? If we can't... we know that Microsoft has the
money to influence politicians... the only antidote to money is voters that show
up as bodies and voice their opinions against the Microsoft position.





[ Reply to This | # ]

Perfect...
Authored by: Latesigner on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 08:14 AM EDT
It's always lovely to watch the other side hang itself.
Pacheco has no credibility with us and Morgan W. Reed, if he shows up at the
meeting, will destroy any he could hope to gain with anyone not paid off or
brain dead.

---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Answer with specificity, please
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 09:52 AM EDT
Mr Briklin, could you please give a more specific answer to PJ's question? For
example, when you write, "I used the Roland with a free-standing mike
clipped to a stand about 5 or 6 feet away from the people talking", was it
five feet or six feet, or something in between? If the people were moving when
they were talking, or were not all the same distance, please say so. We and PJ
need to know. You're giving others the idea that they don't have to answer
questions either. Some even think they can give no answer at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh, for a pair of giant scissors
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 10:29 AM EDT
To snip the strings holding up the puppet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Problems with the video
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT
Is there a way to view the video on Windows XP without installing RealPlayer? I
tried Real Alternative and RealMediaSplitter to no avail. If someone could
confirm that either of these actually works then I'll dig further. Maybe it's
just my setup. Thanks! -- Dennis

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Berkman Center's Video of the ODF Conference
Authored by: rcbixler on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 11:30 AM EDT
It was an interesting discussion. I particularly liked
the contrast between what Morgan Reed said and what
someone else (whose name I forgot) said later in responce.
First, Reed claims that choosing Open Document format
somehow amounts to a loss of innovation. Then he says
that ultimately the commonwealth should have no format
preferences but the matter of archivability should solely
be a matter of discussion between the vendor and the
customer.

The other commentor mentioned that Microsoft's XML format
licence has a couple of requirements: 1) anyone who uses
the format must get a licence from Microsoft and, 2) any
use of the format must not deviate from Microsoft's
standard. Both of these requirements are onerous ones,
but the second one in particular would limit the range of
"innovation" possible with the Microsoft XML standard. It
leaves all the innovation with the standard to whatever
Microsoft is willing to allow.

I would also add that exactly the discussion that Reed
mentioned did occur between the vendor Microsoft and the
customer the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the vendor
has so far declined the fulfill the customer's
requirements. It's unclear to me that Reed has a
legitimate complaint based on the reasons he gave.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Partners Support Microsoft (Surprise!)
Authored by: Tamas on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 12:39 PM EDT
I just ran down the entire list of members listed on the ACT site to see whether they had an interest in Microsoft prevailing in the present conflict. Here's what I found; of the 59 members listed:
  • 25 are clearly pro-Microsoft. To qualify for this category the company had to be a Microsoft business partner and/or have a focus on purely Microsoft technologies.
  • 11 are clearly neutral. This category includes companies who, while they might support Microsoft, also clearly support other platforms (Java, *nix, etc.)
  • 11 are indeterminate. These are folks whose site does not mention which platforms their solutions or services are based on.
  • 12 are defunct. The link on the ACT site is broken, links to a generic ISP-provided page, or explicitly states that the company is no longer in business.
Read what you will into this. I do wonder whether ACT sought the input of its members before pushing the official Microsoft line. Of course with a dominant number of Microsoft business partners the result could very well have been the same...

t.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One of ACT's Objections Was Never Answered Properly
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 04:59 PM EDT
I wish someone had called ACT's bluff, by giving the proper answer to the one
objection ACT raised that almost made sense.

Most of ACT's points were clearly for Microsoft's benefit, and against the
interests of the public, small business, and competition in general.

But ACT did make one point that could be considered valid, without further
clarification from the Massechusetts side.

ACT's nearly-valid point was that, if file formats have been cast in stone, by
choosing a single standard, then companies who want to offer new innovative
software capabilities would be unable to do so, if those innovations required
new or changed file formats.

There was an obvious answer to this objection, but, unfortunately, no one stated
it. That answer was that the file formats were, in fact, _NOT_ cast in stone.

The ODF standard is a living standard. It will change over time. Thus, if the
innovating company needs a change, then they need to go through the standards
process to get it.

Alternatively, if they are proposing a _new_ file format, then that format must
be _open_, as per the Massechusetts definition.

If that answer had been given, then the question could have been turned back to
ACT, to wit, is there any reason why a given company's file formats cannot be
open, and, if not, why not?

I think the ACT representative would have been hard pressed to give an answer
that didn't sound, to the rest of the audience, like "we need closed
formats in order to lock in our customers."

But, as I said, ACT's objection was never answered.

ACT then went on to suggest that, therefore, there should be _NO_ standard on
file formats in Massechusetts, which was another obviously dishonest ploy, since
no standards means, in reality, a continuation of the de facto proprietary
Microsoft standard.

All in all, though, it was a very good discussion.

By the way, did anyone else find it ironic when the ACT representative said that
he hoped, one day, that some other small company could become the next
Microsoft? Wouldn't that seem to go against the ostensible mission of an
organization named The Association for __Competitive__ Technology?

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is actually only one problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:47 PM EDT
That is that Microsoft has a monopoly. Microsoft wants to lock people into its format only because it has a monopoly. In fact everything it does is based on the fact that it has a monopoly.

If Microsoft was one among equals, it would be singing an entirely different tune. The last thing they would want is for some large and influencial customer to say that they were planning on standardizing on a single proprietory format and were going to hold public discussions to help them decide which one. Far too risky, much better to have a agreed open standard, at least they would maintain market share, the other way they stand to lose their customer entirely.

Microsoft are therefore in a very difficult position; what they want to say is, monopoly good, competition bad. But this of course is the thing they cannot say; so they have to say something else. But it does not matter what they say, it always comes out as, monopoly good, competition bad.

Thus when Microsoft speaks, you do not here anything constructive, or even barely informative; just words strung together:

BILL GATES: Well, definitely the challenge of having such a broad technology portfolio, and getting the benefits of where those things merge together, you know that's something we come in and work on every day. It's very cool to see a lot of these things coming together. For example, in e-mail we started with Hotmail as our kind of low-end free thing, and Exchange was this high-end corporate thing. And we're really saying, okay, our customers should be able to have deep, rich e-mail services whether they run the servers or whether we run the servers for them. That is really the best of what Hotmail's been—where you can just connect up, create an account very easily—and what Exchange has been in terms of capabilities. And so now we want to say, okay, you can buy that as a server, you can buy that as a service. We're not fully there on that, but it's actually the excellence of Exchange as a server product and Hotmail as a service-type product. That's big-scale—hundreds of millions of users—it's really the learning from both of those coming together that will let us do something pretty neat.

Nothing there is there? Informed? Inspired? I feel ashamed to quote it on Groklaw. If you want to read it all, it is here: Financ ial Analyst Meeting 2005. Unfortunately this is about as good as it gets. Quantity not quality. I suspect that the only people who read this stuff have been paid to read it.

Alan(UK)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grassroots -> Astroturf
Authored by: meshuggeneh on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:45 PM EDT
The doubletalk in that quote is no doubt why you chose to quote it:
"...this anti-Microsoft cabal is arguing that the company is shirking its responsibilities and the settlement is proving completely ineffectual. If only they would take off their blinders, they would see that this case has drastically changed the industry and that competition is healthy.

"From the beginning, it was clear to virtually everyone that the settlement was in the best interests of the industry, the economy and consumers. The agreement removed the cloud of government regulation that had been hanging over the entire industry and sent the message that it was time to focus on innovation and competition, instead of regulation."

Innovation and Competition. That's what MS calls what they did to deserve a trial and indictment.

Wow. Let me get this straight. The agreement was ineffectual... I think he is agreeing with this. And as a MS spokesman (being a representative of an organization that benefits MS and receives compensation for that benefit) we can generally conclude that MS also agrees they have not been hindered by the anti-trust decision made against them, and are optimistic about their future ability to do More Of The Same. But then they go on to say this is a victory against regulation of anti-competitive activity. This must be galling to Kollar-Kotelly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 02:46 AM EST
How did the name Darl pop in here?
Does Reed also have a brother, or you claim just a spiritual brothership?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reed was successful to this extent
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 04:56 AM EST
He was able to imply that there were only his people's jobs and his practical
considerations to account.

"But it's actually, when it's people's jobs, and it's people's livelihoods,
I think it's flip to say that. But it actually has some practical, there are
some practical considerations that you have to consider."

[ Reply to This | # ]

ACT membership
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 08:09 AM EST
It is interesting that membership fees are
  • Free for individuals
  • $100 per year for corporate members with up to $2,000,000 in annual gross revenue.
If most of their members are these small developers, I am curious about where their money comes from. They are clearly a well funded lobby group. I am doubtless being unreasonably sceptical about their commitment to these hard working garage developers. I have no doubt that, if they do receive large sums from Microsoft, this is only because of Microsoft's desire to create a better environment for the small guys.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mini-transcript draft
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 06:09 PM EST
I transcribed for my notes for a research project and to help pay attention. I
don't plan on doing more on the transcript, but these rough notes may help
others. Most quotations are literal, but not all are. Times refer to the
RealVideo posted online.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/home?wid=10&func=viewSubmission&sid=83
7

15:00
sun microsystems
tim bray
Solution is open formats

16:30 pedro octon un commission in brussels “avoids depending on technologies
that imply or impose a single”

18:30 fundamental questions about doing business
18:50 stop because it’s bad for my business model right now


21:30 [4th guy on right] “it’s an everybody issue” “who owns the documents” “if
I create a document I will tell you my very personal view that is my document to
do anything I want whenever I want with any application no matter what license
that application and that is my document...”




22:30 [start on Mass and OpenDocument]

37:30 “anything but the right to sell a product to a customer” “chief concern”


42:50 “you will see governments and anyone that has long term concerns that rise
above short time conversion”
43:00 “we do conversions all the time”

43:25 [guy from Novell]
43:45 [reference to GOCC]

44:30 [morgan reed from ct] “there are some concerns”

45:22 “everyone here moved from wordperfect to word” “because wordperfect didn’t
step up”

44:38 “you should not have the state locked ... into a standard where a small
company might innovative something better”

47:00 “choice comes from standards, choice comes from competition, choice
doesn’t come from monopoly, you look at the internet, look at the web, look at
the electrical system, look at the telephone system, these things are all based
on standards down to the core”

47:20 “now compare that to the world of office document software which is not
based on standards and I ask you which is which of these is the least
innovative”

47:45 “you used the term obviously least innovative” “you don’t appreciate the
features”

48:45 [dan brinkman] “i care about innovation” “others can innovative” “they
also said yes to PDF” “the argument is about the definition of open” “anyone can
innovative in their own way if they have ... standard follows certain things”

49:15 “state will look at it and say is it good enough technically good enough
to adopt” “this is not cutting down choice” “the standard has a lot of
latitude” “ebcdic vs ascii” “[ASCII] makes all sorts of things possible” “anyone
can use it”

50:10 “we’re talking about open”

50:20 [jordan ___ from lillycorp healthcare] [compare standards to problems in
tsunami communication and katrina forms]
51:20 [medical records]

52:25 “struggling to exchange basic sentences” “basic information”

52:45 [speaker far right, mr sutor] “another format which is the new xml in
office 12, the untested format that is not backward [computability], which will
require everyone who has engineered around that format” “and you got this other
format, which is roughly equivalent in terms of functionality” “we have people
who will vote for the open format” “community of people who have decades of
experience” “we at ibm will add support ibm workplace”

54:10 “i got two choices, one choice is more open” “if i am a small company, I
am going to vote on an open format that I can build upon”

54:40 [mr blunt?, audience]

55:40 “when you dont have choice to switch to another product” “it puts that
vendor in control of a bunch of things in your environment it controls your
budget” “if you have a million documents in a single format” “if they decide to
raise the cost of wordperfect, what choice do you have” “customer should be in
charge”

56:23 “puts vendor in charge of performance of your technology” “if something
is slow or doesn’t support the latest greatest technology” “you have to go
through a painful conversion” “if the product is buggy, you are stuck” “you dont
have any leverage of your supplier” “the vendor has control over a number of
things customer should have”

57:30 “they’re in control of your security too” [talk about java]

58:00 “ford explorer with firestone tires” “performance, security, expensive”
“standard on the rim size, you have a choice” “you control the security, you
control the cost, you control the performance” “keeps ford honest” “makes their
products better”

58:55 “you have said by switching to this new format, i’m paraphrasing, odf”

59:10 “that is stifles innovation, that it holds back people who are building
innovative products”

59:30 “license behind microsoft’s file format” “100% complaint with our
specification” “when a specification is open” “anything you want”

1:00:10 [innovation from] “taking something from w3c and stretching it”

1:00:30 microsoft formats/licenses? Offers more ability to innovative when you
compare it to another “specification where the sky is the limit” “that’s the
beauty of it”

1:01:00 “the government should not have a preference” “of any sort”

1:01:30 “small company with a great idea” “stores information in a different
container” “i’ll kick their butt” “i’ve got this great idea, I think this is
what the state should use”

1:02:30 “i’d like to see one of our small companies be the next microsoft”

1:03:00 [panel guy on left from w3c]

1:30:30 [tcp/ip allowed innovation]

1:03:45 [tim berners lee competed with other markup languages] “required some
standardization”

1:04:10 [w3c founded because] “netscape was trying to create its own flavor of
html... micosoft”

1:04:45 “maybe we should let them” “we need to standardize this, but not that”
“it was the right thing to do”

1:05:30

1:06:10 [audience, unnamed] “there are million standards” “not as if standards
are good” “if they are done right”

1:06:45 “standards means you have to give things up” “that is what a standard
is” “there is a cost to achieve the benefit” “how much innovation do you give
up” “when you agree on the type of electricity” [ac/dc]

1:07:30 [odf] “no incentive for innovation” “out of your mind to come up with
another word processor” “what is the cost of odf” “more innovation is possible
than is economically [??] today”

“a supreme court decision”

1:08:15 “if were talking about a non commercial off the shelf software product
and a spec no one would say MA could not design a specification for a
transportation warehouse on the pike”

1:09:00 [moderator] “web 2.0” “supersystems” “is this a different moment in time
than it was before”

1:09:45 [panel guy third from left] “where do you standardize?” “there are a lot
of things you can standardize” “there are some easy lessons from last ten years”
“what is the internet?” “the internet is a series of agreements” “what is the
web” “the web is an agreement”

1:10:30 “you don’t standardize what the software does, you standardize what the
software saves, and what the software says”

1:10:45 “we went to [lengths] to standardize APIs of the web... CORBA”

1:11:30 “web 2.0 is a vacuous marketing”

1:11:50 “the stuff that is new and cool is all founded very solidly on the web
1.0 architecture”
1:12:15 “single greatest thing that is driving” “much higher degree of
standardization in the [web] browsers”

1:12:50 “blogging and syndication” “sociologically cultural change”

1:13:15 [panel guy far right]

1:14:10 “someone with a bright idea says I don’t have to reinvent the wheel”

1:14:30 [audience, reporter] “nothing to report about” “today because of all the
open standards” “waves of innovation” “can’t keep my heads screwed on straight”


1:15:40 “rss is a firehose” [lots of information] “i can’t keep up”

1:16:10 “facilitated by open standards”

1:16:15 [question from audience for panel] “we’re moving away from binary” “you
can’t look at that” “now data is more human readable” “xml databases” “at stake
here” “to tag information with vendor proprietary” “these word processing
documents” “now we’re getting living documents” “manipulated, queried” “is this
changing the equation?”

1:17:30 [w3c panel guy far left] “semantic web”

1:18:00 [scientific communities] “standardize vocabulary” “map these things to
each other”

1:18:40 “they just want to exchange data at a semantic, syntatic level”

1:19:00 [semantics on top of web layer]

1:19:20 [panel guy, third from left]

1:19:30 [xml doesn’t handle...] “years building b2b systems” “incredibility
painful experience” “hook up applications from two different departments”
“shared concept they call ship date” “they mean completely different things”

1:20:00 “xml has freed us to concentrate on semantics”

1:20:15 [uml]

1:20:40 “hard grind .. is how to get shared semantics”

1:21:30 [panel guy far right]

1:22:30 “these great visual applications, and formats became more binary, that
killed a lot for a while, formats change frequently”

1:22:45 “xml came in” “textual format, a hope knowing what the thing was” “we
quite possibility could have it all” “standardized format”

1:23:30 [panel guy, second from left] “microsoft 800 gorilla” “I worked for
microsoft for 9 years”

1:23:50 “94, 95 effort my microsoft to coop the web” “microsoft model is extend
influence to a point where they can coop or control many things”

1:24:15 “there was an effort over the course of the lifetime of word to coop the
word open which is really ironic given the current cirumstances” “microsoft more
recently, microsoft has used a shared source model to show they are open” “is
not open” “while they say they are innovative, shared source does not offer...”


1:25:05 [small countries] “taking on microsoft on these issues”

1:25:30 [ibm and linux] [microsoft and open source]

1:26:10 [moderator] “the question of patents” “patenting regime” “whats to be
done about it” “inclination that it could be very bad”

1:26:45 [audience guy] “why are we talking about it more than used to”
“convergence” “telephone used to be just a telephone” “when that telephone has
video, ... pda, it could be infringing a 1000 patents literally and there is no
way you could pay royalty on all of them”

1:27:35 “open source... patent intolerant”

1:27:50 “standards organizations”

1:28:40 [patents] “are not going to disappear”

1:28:50 [patents] “physical object”

1:29:10 [new audience guy?] “patents inflexion point of open source”
[copyrights vs patents confusion]

1:30:00 “open source could be an implementation of a particular patent” [patent
assertion] “open source irrelevant” “the patent holder has the power to
basically kill anyone’s implementation including open source implementation”
“when you have an open standard” “have agreed not to assert their patents”
“just because there is open source” “you won’t be infringing”

1:31:10 [panel guy, third from left] “elephant in the room that should be
discussed” [united states patent office] “extremely dysfunctional” “failed”
“I’ve personally written checks $100,000” [to get patents] “I saw no business
benefit”

1:32:20 “we have a very handy laboratory in front us so we can observe the
effect of patents” “hardware vs the internet” “you will notice there are few
innovative new startups” “building cell phones or dvd players” “that’s because
the thicket of patents in that area is so thick that because before you start”
“you have to invest millions in licensing costs”

1:32:45 “one place in the economy is weird and different that is the internet
and the web where” “no patents at all” “insane locus of innovation” “flock” “new
web browser” “maybe they’re get big”

1:33:10 “motivation for patents” “although” “force exposure” “emerically i seem
to see a negative correlation between the density of patents and the amount of
innovation”

1:33:30 [audience guy] “what a patent is” “patent office is dysfunction is in
crisis” “new, non obvious, useful” “not being met on the software side”

1:34:20 “if you like software patents” [time Windows releases] “40 months is
forever in our industry”

1:34:50 “auto industry is not involved with patent reform” “cross licensing”

1:35:10 “small guy’s advantage” “leverage the hell out of the big guy” “eolas
bad patent” “amicus brief” “are some opportunities for small companies”

1:35:40 “outweighed?”

1:36:00 “third party submission of prior art” “i’d like to see greater
collaboration” “you have two months”

1:37:05 “fix the patent office”

1:37:15 [dan brickman] [patents] “having been sued” “total mess” “million
dollars” [not for a small company] “business process patents” “little guy has
been stuck too” ‘lzw patent has been a real mess for the web” “slowed down
innovation”

1:38:10 “patent on a particular compression technique”

1:38:30 “unisys changed their licensing terms several times”

1:38:45 “everyone was suddenly stuck with 24 hours to make decisions about huge
amounts of money”

1:39:01 “held back all sorts of development”

1:39:20 “late into industry” “a real problem” “not like aircraft industry” “from
day one”

1:39:40 “economist survey” “in the end we will have a more efficient market”
“when they all expire”

1:40:22 “mechanical world don’t hold as well” [in software] “figure it out, it’s
a real mess”

1:40:30 “i’m karen copenhager [?] from black duck, not a patent attorney, but i
am an attorney” “people often think proprietary software and open source
software” [when whole web challenged by patent] “absence of prior art” “we also
have the best way to respond to patents” “coordinated response” “most
disruption”

1:41:40 “any large company that has a patent and asserts it in a way that is
hugely disruptive to the industry is going to find out that it is a problem to
them” “participation in the industry” “and customers” [vs] “small company” “same
incentives”

1:42:20 [panel guy] “happening this week” “see-en-ti-go” “aspects of XML”

1:42:40 [audience] [patents]

1:43:14 “patent” “attach a license to it” “make a business of it” “using patents
offensively” “we’re going to use it defensively” “threaten open source
developer”

1:44:00 “sword as well as a shield”

1:44:25 “bring about revolution”

1:44:40 [audience guy] “collect licensing fees from your patent you are using
them offensively”

1:45:05 “debate” “i’m only using them defensively”

1:45:20 [audience, anton delarose ibm] “touch on question of innovation and the
[open?] document” “stifles innovation” “confusion between”

1:45:55 “confusion between content and function”

1:46:15 “innovation is stifled” “standardize on the content and moving the data
around it enables” “innovation flourish”

1:46:40 “difference between content and information” “critical aspect of
enterprise” “information” “frees up the ability to innovation”

1:47:10 “opens up to any small company”

1:47:30 [new speaker] “judy pruett [?] web accessibility initiative”
“Massachusetts” “work by Sun and IBM”

1:48:05 “Massachusetts played a pivotal role starting 11 years ago in a push for
accessibility in windows and Microsoft applications” [Massachusetts] “leadership
role” “direct dialog with disability community” “careful examination of the
products, testing by local people” “job loss locally”

1:49:10 “engagement with local disability”

1:49:30 [moderator] “digital technology should be better for accessibility”

1:50:05 [new speaker]

1:51:00 [new speaker] “jordan rosan [?]” “lilycorp” “linux technology” “dealing
with disability as a community” “peter quinn has to face, all of the workers who
will immediately say” “fear” [how will affect my daily work]

1:52:10 “address clearly” “on a day to day basis” “security they are looking
for” “open standard does not mean a lot to everybody” “it means a lot to us
here, we have a genuine interest”

1:52:40 [moderator] “after 4:30”

1:53:10 [identifications] “todd martin IBM” “mike libel-heart o b systems” “bill
burns __associates” “shuan goodwin 463 communications “__ Sun Microsystems”
“judy pruwel w3c accessibility initiative ” “lu-wung chung” [laughter] “carol
myers Massachusetts network communication council” “ ?? “tom raven red hat”
“ross doctor ibm” “shaun __ consultant” “tom ___ ibm” “mark __ novel“
“___ibm” “___ consortion info” “last year’s competitorin”

1:54:05 “tom odonell cisco systems” “jordan rosen lilycorp” “michael __ also
lilycorp” “david LeDuke the software and information industry association ”
“morgan reed association for competitive technologies” “david billion zdnet”
“karen __ for black duck” “daren bricklan ___ and Massachusetts technology
leadership council” “peter __ c-h solutions” “kyle __ forester research”

1:54:45 [moderator] “last comments?”

1:54:59 “always a management problem”

1:55:10 “here in Massachusetts” “discussions happening all around the world”
“ODF” [not an if, a when]

1:55:30 [moderator] “if” “leads to more choice and innovation” “Massachusetts
will be part of the leadership”


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/home?wid=10&func=viewSubmission&sid=83
7

15:00
sun microsystems
tim bray
Solution is open formats

16:30 pedro octon un commission in brussels “avoids depending on technologies
that imply or impose a single”

18:30 fundamental questions about doing business
18:50 stop because it’s bad for my business model right now


21:30 [4th guy on right] “it’s an everybody issue” “who owns the documents” “if
I create a document I will tell you my very personal view that is my document to
do anything I want whenever I want with any application no matter what license
that application and that is my document...”




22:30 [start on Mass and OpenDocument]

37:30 “anything but the right to sell a product to a customer” “chief concern”


42:50 “you will see governments and anyone that has long term concerns that rise
above short time conversion”
43:00 “we do conversions all the time”

43:25 [guy from Novell]
43:45 [reference to GOCC]

44:30 [morgan reed from ct] “there are some concerns”

45:22 “everyone here moved from wordperfect to word” “because wordperfect didn’t
step up”

44:38 “you should not have the state locked ... into a standard where a small
company might innovative something better”

47:00 “choice comes from standards, choice comes from competition, choice
doesn’t come from monopoly, you look at the internet, look at the web, look at
the electrical system, look at the telephone system, these things are all based
on standards down to the core”

47:20 “now compare that to the world of office document software which is not
based on standards and I ask you which is which of these is the least
innovative”

47:45 “you used the term obviously least innovative” “you don’t appreciate the
features”

48:45 [dan brinkman] “i care about innovation” “others can innovative” “they
also said yes to PDF” “the argument is about the definition of open” “anyone can
innovative in their own way if they have ... standard follows certain things”

49:15 “state will look at it and say is it good enough technically good enough
to adopt” “this is not cutting down choice” “the standard has a lot of
latitude” “ebcdic vs ascii” “[ASCII] makes all sorts of things possible” “anyone
can use it”

50:10 “we’re talking about open”

50:20 [jordan ___ from lillycorp healthcare] [compare standards to problems in
tsunami communication and katrina forms]
51:20 [medical records]

52:25 “struggling to exchange basic sentences” “basic information”

52:45 [speaker far right, mr sutor] “another format which is the new xml in
office 12, the untested format that is not backward [computability], which will
require everyone who has engineered around that format” “and you got this other
format, which is roughly equivalent in terms of functionality” “we have people
who will vote for the open format” “community of people who have decades of
experience” “we at ibm will add support ibm workplace”

54:10 “i got two choices, one choice is more open” “if i am a small company, I
am going to vote on an open format that I can build upon”

54:40 [mr blunt?, audience]

55:40 “when you dont have choice to switch to another product” “it puts that
vendor in control of a bunch of things in your environment it controls your
budget” “if you have a million documents in a single format” “if they decide to
raise the cost of wordperfect, what choice do you have” “customer should be in
charge”

56:23 “puts vendor in charge of performance of your technology” “if something
is slow or doesn’t support the latest greatest technology” “you have to go
through a painful conversion” “if the product is buggy, you are stuck” “you dont
have any leverage of your supplier” “the vendor has control over a number of
things customer should have”

57:30 “they’re in control of your security too” [talk about java]

58:00 “ford explorer with firestone tires” “performance, security, expensive”
“standard on the rim size, you have a choice” “you control the security, you
control the cost, you control the performance” “keeps ford honest” “makes their
products better”

58:55 “you have said by switching to this new format, i’m paraphrasing, odf”

59:10 “that is stifles innovation, that it holds back people who are building
innovative products”

59:30 “license behind microsoft’s file format” “100% complaint with our
specification” “when a specification is open” “anything you want”

1:00:10 [innovation from] “taking something from w3c and stretching it”

1:00:30 microsoft formats/licenses? Offers more ability to innovative when you
compare it to another “specification where the sky is the limit” “that’s the
beauty of it”

1:01:00 “the government should not have a preference” “of any sort”

1:01:30 “small company with a great idea” “stores information in a different
container” “i’ll kick their butt” “i’ve got this great idea, I think this is
what the state should use”

1:02:30 “i’d like to see one of our small companies be the next microsoft”

1:03:00 [panel guy on left from w3c]

1:30:30 [tcp/ip allowed innovation]

1:03:45 [tim berners lee competed with other markup languages] “required some
standardization”

1:04:10 [w3c founded because] “netscape was trying to create its own flavor of
html... micosoft”

1:04:45 “maybe we should let them” “we need to standardize this, but not that”
“it was the right thing to do”

1:05:30

1:06:10 [audience, unnamed] “there are million standards” “not as if standards
are good” “if they are done right”

1:06:45 “standards means you have to give things up” “that is what a standard
is” “there is a cost to achieve the benefit” “how much innovation do you give
up” “when you agree on the type of electricity” [ac/dc]

1:07:30 [odf] “no incentive for innovation” “out of your mind to come up with
another word processor” “what is the cost of odf” “more innovation is possible
than is economically [??] today”

“a supreme court decision”

1:08:15 “if were talking about a non commercial off the shelf software product
and a spec no one would say MA could not design a specification for a
transportation warehouse on the pike”

1:09:00 [moderator] “web 2.0” “supersystems” “is this a different moment in time
than it was before”

1:09:45 [panel guy third from left] “where do you standardize?” “there are a lot
of things you can standardize” “there are some easy lessons from last ten years”
“what is the internet?” “the internet is a series of agreements” “what is the
web” “the web is an agreement”

1:10:30 “you don’t standardize what the software does, you standardize what the
software saves, and what the software says”

1:10:45 “we went to [lengths] to standardize APIs of the web... CORBA”

1:11:30 “web 2.0 is a vacuous marketing”

1:11:50 “the stuff that is new and cool is all founded very solidly on the web
1.0 architecture”
1:12:15 “single greatest thing that is driving” “much higher degree of
standardization in the [web] browsers”

1:12:50 “blogging and syndication” “sociologically cultural change”

1:13:15 [panel guy far right]

1:14:10 “someone with a bright idea says I don’t have to reinvent the wheel”

1:14:30 [audience, reporter] “nothing to report about” “today because of all the
open standards” “waves of innovation” “can’t keep my heads screwed on straight”


1:15:40 “rss is a firehose” [lots of information] “i can’t keep up”

1:16:10 “facilitated by open standards”

1:16:15 [question from audience for panel] “we’re moving away from binary” “you
can’t look at that” “now data is more human readable” “xml databases” “at stake
here” “to tag information with vendor proprietary” “these word processing
documents” “now we’re getting living documents” “manipulated, queried” “is this
changing the equation?”

1:17:30 [w3c panel guy far left] “semantic web”

1:18:00 [scientific communities] “standardize vocabulary” “map these things to
each other”

1:18:40 “they just want to exchange data at a semantic, syntatic level”

1:19:00 [semantics on top of web layer]

1:19:20 [panel guy, third from left]

1:19:30 [xml doesn’t handle...] “years building b2b systems” “incredibility
painful experience” “hook up applications from two different departments”
“shared concept they call ship date” “they mean completely different things”

1:20:00 “xml has freed us to concentrate on semantics”

1:20:15 [uml]

1:20:40 “hard grind .. is how to get shared semantics”

1:21:30 [panel guy far right]

1:22:30 “these great visual applications, and formats became more binary, that
killed a lot for a while, formats change frequently”

1:22:45 “xml came in” “textual format, a hope knowing what the thing was” “we
quite possibility could have it all” “standardized format”

1:23:30 [panel guy, second from left] “microsoft 800 gorilla” “I worked for
microsoft for 9 years”

1:23:50 “94, 95 effort my microsoft to coop the web” “microsoft model is extend
influence to a point where they can coop or control many things”

1:24:15 “there was an effort over the course of the lifetime of word to coop the
word open which is really ironic given the current cirumstances” “microsoft more
recently, microsoft has used a shared source model to show they are open” “is
not open” “while they say they are innovative, shared source does not offer...”


1:25:05 [small countries] “taking on microsoft on these issues”

1:25:30 [ibm and linux] [microsoft and open source]

1:26:10 [moderator] “the question of patents” “patenting regime” “whats to be
done about it” “inclination that it could be very bad”

1:26:45 [audience guy] “why are we talking about it more than used to”
“convergence” “telephone used to be just a telephone” “when that telephone has
video, ... pda, it could be infringing a 1000 patents literally and there is no
way you could pay royalty on all of them”

1:27:35 “open source... patent intolerant”

1:27:50 “standards organizations”

1:28:40 [patents] “are not going to disappear”

1:28:50 [patents] “physical object”

1:29:10 [new audience guy?] “patents inflexion point of open source”
[copyrights vs patents confusion]

1:30:00 “open source could be an implementation of a particular patent” [patent
assertion] “open source irrelevant” “the patent holder has the power to
basically kill anyone’s implementation including open source implementation”
“when you have an open standard” “have agreed not to assert their patents”
“just because there is open source” “you won’t be infringing”

1:31:10 [panel guy, third from left] “elephant in the room that should be
discussed” [united states patent office] “extremely dysfunctional” “failed”
“I’ve personally written checks $100,000” [to get patents] “I saw no business
benefit”

1:32:20 “we have a very handy laboratory in front us so we can observe the
effect of patents” “hardware vs the internet” “you will notice there are few
innovative new startups” “building cell phones or dvd players” “that’s because
the thicket of patents in that area is so thick that because before you start”
“you have to invest millions in licensing costs”

1:32:45 “one place in the economy is weird and different that is the internet
and the web where” “no patents at all” “insane locus of innovation” “flock” “new
web browser” “maybe they’re get big”

1:33:10 “motivation for patents” “although” “force exposure” “emerically i seem
to see a negative correlation between the density of patents and the amount of
innovation”

1:33:30 [audience guy] “what a patent is” “patent office is dysfunction is in
crisis” “new, non obvious, useful” “not being met on the software side”

1:34:20 “if you like software patents” [time Windows releases] “40 months is
forever in our industry”

1:34:50 “auto industry is not involved with patent reform” “cross licensing”

1:35:10 “small guy’s advantage” “leverage the hell out of the big guy” “eolas
bad patent” “amicus brief” “are some opportunities for small companies”

1:35:40 “outweighed?”

1:36:00 “third party submission of prior art” “i’d like to see greater
collaboration” “you have two months”

1:37:05 “fix the patent office”

1:37:15 [dan brickman] [patents] “having been sued” “total mess” “million
dollars” [not for a small company] “business process patents” “little guy has
been stuck too” ‘lzw patent has been a real mess for the web” “slowed down
innovation”

1:38:10 “patent on a particular compression technique”

1:38:30 “unisys changed their licensing terms several times”

1:38:45 “everyone was suddenly stuck with 24 hours to make decisions about huge
amounts of money”

1:39:01 “held back all sorts of development”

1:39:20 “late into industry” “a real problem” “not like aircraft industry” “from
day one”

1:39:40 “economist survey” “in the end we will have a more efficient market”
“when they all expire”

1:40:22 “mechanical world don’t hold as well” [in software] “figure it out, it’s
a real mess”

1:40:30 “i’m karen copenhager [?] from black duck, not a patent attorney, but i
am an attorney” “people often think proprietary software and open source
software” [when whole web challenged by patent] “absence of prior art” “we also
have the best way to respond to patents” “coordinated response” “most
disruption”

1:41:40 “any large company that has a patent and asserts it in a way that is
hugely disruptive to the industry is going to find out that it is a problem to
them” “participation in the industry” “and customers” [vs] “small company” “same
incentives”

1:42:20 [panel guy] “happening this week” “see-en-ti-go” “aspects of XML”

1:42:40 [audience] [patents]

1:43:14 “patent” “attach a license to it” “make a business of it” “using patents
offensively” “we’re going to use it defensively” “threaten open source
developer”

1:44:00 “sword as well as a shield”

1:44:25 “bring about revolution”

1:44:40 [audience guy] “collect licensing fees from your patent you are using
them offensively”

1:45:05 “debate” “i’m only using them defensively”

1:45:20 [audience, anton delarose ibm] “touch on question of innovation and the
[open?] document” “stifles innovation” “confusion between”

1:45:55 “confusion between content and function”

1:46:15 “innovation is stifled” “standardize on the content and moving the data
around it enables” “innovation flourish”

1:46:40 “difference between content and information” “critical aspect of
enterprise” “information” “frees up the ability to innovation”

1:47:10 “opens up to any small company”

1:47:30 [new speaker] “judy pruett [?] web accessibility initiative”
“Massachusetts” “work by Sun and IBM”

1:48:05 “Massachusetts played a pivotal role starting 11 years ago in a push for
accessibility in windows and Microsoft applications” [Massachusetts] “leadership
role” “direct dialog with disability community” “careful examination of the
products, testing by local people” “job loss locally”

1:49:10 “engagement with local disability”

1:49:30 [moderator] “digital technology should be better for accessibility”

1:50:05 [new speaker]

1:51:00 [new speaker] “jordan rosan [?]” “lilycorp” “linux technology” “dealing
with disability as a community” “peter quinn has to face, all of the workers who
will immediately say” “fear” [how will affect my daily work]

1:52:10 “address clearly” “on a day to day basis” “security they are looking
for” “open standard does not mean a lot to everybody” “it means a lot to us
here, we have a genuine interest”

1:52:40 [moderator] “after 4:30”

1:53:10 [identifications] “todd martin IBM” “mike libel-heart o b systems” “bill
burns __associates” “shuan goodwin 463 communications “__ Sun Microsystems”
“judy pruwel w3c accessibility initiative ” “lu-wung chung” [laughter] “carol
myers Massachusetts network communication council” “ ?? “tom raven red hat”
“ross doctor ibm” “shaun __ consultant” “tom ___ ibm” “mark __ novel“
“___ibm” “___ consortion info” “last year’s competitorin”

1:54:05 “tom odonell cisco systems” “jordan rosen lilycorp” “michael __ also
lilycorp” “david LeDuke the software and information industry association ”
“morgan reed association for competitive technologies” “david billion zdnet”
“karen __ for black duck” “daren bricklan ___ and Massachusetts technology
leadership council” “peter __ c-h solutions” “kyle __ forester research”

1:54:45 [moderator] “last comments?”

1:54:59 “always a management problem”

1:55:10 “here in Massachusetts” “discussions happening all around the world”
“ODF” [not an if, a when]

1:55:30 [moderator] “if” “leads to more choice and innovation” “Massachusetts
will be part of the leadership”


[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )