In a recent Computerworld UK blog entry, Glyn Moody takes Microsoft’s Jason Matusox to task for conflating “balance” with “open”. I won’t re-hash the points Mr. Moody makes so read his article too!

Basically, Mr. Matusox laments how Open standards are “overbalanced” in favor of standard implementors, and someone is insisting that standards must have “no IP restrictions”.

Notwithstanding the laughable idea of Microsoft pretense to have any interest at all in a fair, open, or “balanced” standard process, there are some interesting points revealed in Mr. Matusox’s article. The Exacting Task of Extracting Signal from Noise is once again assumed by your Humble Host.

I’m going to need more hay for this here strawman!

Mr. Matusox sets up a nice little premise:

I think that things like defensive suspension are really important.

[... A long bit about using one patent in an un-related "aphrodisiac" field ...]

But the “no IP restrictions” concept of “open standards” does away with too much. Out of balance.

Now, I put this to you: who exactly is arguing that “defensive suspension” and “no IP restrictions” are necessary or required for standardization?

Most patent grants have language that the patent grant applies to the implementation of the standard, thus covering Mr. Matusox’s aphrodisiac. Most patent grants also have language that the grant is revoked for those parties that bring patent action against the granter, thus covering Mr. Matusox’s “defensive suspension”. Both together, of course, cover the “no IP restrictions”.

So who is arguing for “no IP restrictions”? Red Hat isn’t. Google isn’t. “No IP restrictions” would mean that all related copyrights, trademarks and patents would have to be released into the public domain. Is someone out there seriously proposing that?

Business as usual

Here’s the thing I really want to draw attention to; in a follow-up post - where he is careful to repeat the “no limitations on IP” canard – Mr. Matusox says he “was writing about “open” issues back in March of 2005.”

Further back then that, actually. Mr. Matusox, and Microsoft in general, have been testing this angle since at least 2001-02. Here is Mr. Matusox back in 2002 defending Craig Mundie from 2001 who was at that time trying desperately to directly equate “Shared Source” with “Open Source”:

As a result of Microsofts statement of position today, many people will attempt to say that Shared Source is Microsofts failed attempt at being an Open Source Company. This could not be a more incorrect statement. Shared Source is Open Source.

The number of people outside of Microsoft that think “Shared Source is Open Source” may be closest thing we have ever observed in nature to a perfect zero, but it shows how clearly did Microsoft tries to conflate “Open” with whatever other term or criteria they felt suited them, and that they continue to do so today.

Just wanted to show they’ve been beating the “this not-Open thing is really Open” for at least 8 years now, right up until today. Handy to keep that sort of thing in mind when the Redmond Astroturfers take the field at the bottom of the inning.

(This is why I need a artist partner. Someone please work up a “Redmond Astroturfers” SVG ala the ’95-99 Houston Astros logo!)

More business as usual

This is not a Microsoft-specific failing: you’ll continually see companies that want all the rewards of Free, of Open, of community, with none of the responsibilities. If they must take on any of the responsibilities, it will be the legal or absolute minimum requirements.

If there is a way to twist the word Open into the meaning Proprietary, you can be sure some company is out there bending away right now.