Editing Open standard (section)

==Quotes==
* EU Commissioner [[Erkki Liikanen]]: "Open standards are important to help create interoperable and affordable solutions for everybody. They also promote competition by setting up a technical playing field that is level to all market players. This means lower costs for enterprises and, ultimately, the consumer." ([[World Standards Day]], 14 October 2003) <ref>{{cite web|url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/1374&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en|title=European Commission – PRESS RELEASES – Press release – World Standards Day, 14 October: Global standards for the Global Information Society|website=europa.eu|access-date=18 March 2018}}</ref>
* Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Nokia's Board of Directors: "... Open standards and platforms create a foundation for success. They enable interoperability of technologies and encourage innovativeness and healthy competition, which in turn increases [[consumer choice]] and opens entirely new markets,"<ref>[http://www.kauppalehti.fi/4/i/eng/releases/press_release.jsp?selected=other&oid=20061101/11642616280200&lang=EN Nokia Foundation Award to Mårten Mickos]</ref>
* W3C Director [[Tim Berners-Lee]]: "The decision to make the Web an open system was necessary for it to be universal. You can't propose that something be a universal space and at the same time keep control of it."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/FAQ.html|title=Frequently asked questions by the Press – Tim BL|website=www.w3.org|access-date=18 March 2018}}</ref>
*In the opening address of The Southern African Telecommunications Networks and Applications Conference (SATNAC) 2005, then Minister of Science and Technology, [[Mosibudi Mangena]] stressed need for open standards in ICT:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dst.gov.za/media-room/speeches/archived/speech.2007-05-23.2477659151 |title= The Southern African Telecommunications Networks and Applications Conference (SATNAC) 2005. Opening Address by the Honourable Minister of Science and Technology, Mosibudi Mangena — Department: Science and Technology, South Africa|website=www.dst.gov.za |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090509190132/http://www.dst.gov.za/media-room/speeches/archived/speech.2007-05-23.2477659151 |archive-date=May 9, 2009}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|[...] The tsunami that devastated South Eastern Asian countries and the north-eastern parts of Africa, is perhaps the most graphic, albeit unfortunate, demonstration of the need for global collaboration, and open ICT standards. The incalculable loss of life and damage to property was exacerbated by the fact that responding agencies and non-governmental groups were unable to share information vital to the rescue effort. Each was using different data and document formats. Relief was slowed, and coordination complicated. [...] |Mosibudi Mangena|Opening address of SATNAC 2005}}
<!-- 
Commented out long merged section for now - it needs much work to integrate with article~~~~

==Legitimacy of standards==
{{POV-section|date=December 2007}}{{Unreferenced-section|date=July 2007}}

'''Legitimate standards''' are, to some critics, only those [[standardization|standard]]s whose documentation can be downloaded free-of-charge, and which can be implemented without [[royalties]] or other restrictions.

[[Request for Comments|Internet Request for Comments]] (RFCs) are an example of such [[open standards]]. However, many standards organisations attempt to support themselves by restricting standard documentation through [[copyright]]s (and selling copies), and restricting implementation through [[patent]]s (and selling licenses). 
While this second approach does solve the issue of how to pay for the time (and sometimes travel for meetings, and in some cases on-location research) of those writing the standards, it can cause significant problems.

Standards which cost money to purchase and/or license cause significant problems for:
* developers of [[free software]] and [[open hardware]];
* electronics hobbyists;
* manufacturers of small-volume products; and 
* those developing new products who [[Startup company|lack sufficient access to capital]].

An engineer may spend more time just trying to figure out what is involved in implementing and licensing such a standard than
it would take to actually implement an open standard. Expensive standards often show evidence of having been [[Design by committee|designed by a committee]]. Sometimes, they appear to have gratuitous deviations from existing practice that appear to serve the
interests of the standards organization in creating protectable [[intellectual property]], rather than the societal interests. When standards documents are not affordable, it can cause trouble for technicians trying to debug systems, as well as intelligent end users trying to evaluate or understand the technology.

Standards committee members sometimes double-dip by selling books or classes on how to implement a standard; the more arbitrary the standard, the more market for these add-on products. Some formal standards are developed by people who are more office politicians than engineers. Sometimes, licensing of standards is also used to [[Digital rights management|circumvent a user's legal rights to fair use copying]] by preventing the development of equipment or software that allows such copying.

Sometimes, standards organizations may involve companies with vested interests that all "contribute" patents (subject to licensing), when freely available [[technology]] would have done better. Some standards organizations appear to collect millions of dollars a year for a single standard, or a small set of closely related standards, yet appear to do very little in terms of active standards development.

There are some alternative ways of funding standards:
* funding by governments (for example, [[NIST]]);
* making money from optional compatibility [[certification mark]] licensing, rather than patent licensing;
* developing standards, and making them open to all to create a market;  
* developing own standards by end-users.
* instituting cost-cutting measures, including using [[teleconference]], rather than expensive travel;
* developing standards by one person, or a few people, and simply offering up for use (such as internet RFCs); where if anyone likes it, they can use it, otherwise, they can come up with a better standard or suggest revisions.

It is worth noting the outcome of the competition between the truly open standards of the [[TCP/IP]] [[protocol stack]] (the basis of the Internet), the designed-by-committee and pay for copies [[OSI model|OSI protocol stack]], and the various vendor [[proprietary]] [[Wide area network|WAN]] standards ([[Decnet]], [[SNA]]). TCP/IP dominates.

Less open standards are more competitive when:
* there are no open alternatives; 
* they get to the market first; 
* extensive marketing is used to prop them up; 
* they have a significant technical advantage.

=== Legitimacy/Openness factors ===
* Is the standard documented?
* Is the standard available for all to use, or is it intended to create a [[monopoly]] or [[vendor lock-in]]?
* Is the documentation available for immediate download, free of charge?
* Can the standard be implemented without payment of [[royalties]], membership, or license fees?
* Does licensing the standard pose other restrictions (such as copy protection enforcement)?
* Is sufficient information available to implement the standard without purchasing official documents?
* Are there any patents interfering with the implementation of the standard?
* Are [[trademark]]s enforced in such a way as to interfere with the use of the standard?
* Does the standard avoid arbitrary deviations from existing standard practice?
* Does the standard use appropriate technology?
* Is the standard supported by multiple companies?
* Are licensing fees stated up front?
* Is uniform licensing available (all companies pay comparable fee per unit)?
* Are licensing fees reasonable for small volumes (1–1000 units)?  Is overhead minimal?
* Are licenses free if the product is free?
* How does the openness of the standard compare to competing standards?
* Is the standard extensible?
* Is the standard locked to a particular platform?

=== Some examples ===
Here are some comparisons between different formats..

* WAN: [[TCP/IP]] is much more open than the [[Open Systems Interconnection|OSI]] protocol suite, DECnet, SNA, etc.
* LAN: TCP/IP is much more open than [[NBF]], the [[NetWare]] protocol stack, etc. 
* Video/Audio: "Ogg [[Vorbis]] Audio" and "Ogg [[Theora]] Video" are much more open than other formats, including those with official standards such as [[MP3]], [[Advanced Audio Coding|AAC]], [[MPEG]]1/2/4, etc. Ogg standards are free. Vorbis is patent-free and Theora's patents are automatically licensed, free of charge. Vorbis also appears to offer better audio quality than MP3 or AAC. For [[streaming audio]], [[Icecast]] and [[Peercast]] are more open than RealPlayer or Windows Media Player. MPEG2 patents reportedly cost $2.50 per device (no minimums or annual fees), but there are additional royalties for streaming services, media, etc.
* Instant Messaging:  [[Jabber]] is much more open than [[AIM]], [[ICQ]], [[MSN]], [[Yahoo Messenger]], etc. However, companies such as [[AOL]] have tried to sabotage Jabber by blocking the gateways between Jabber and AIM/ICQ.
* Office Applications: [[OpenDocument]] and [[Office Open XML]] files are much more open than the old [[Microsoft Office]] binary file formats which are proprietary Microsoft controlled formats that are freely available and free to implement. 
* Flash memory: [[Multi Media Card|MMC]] is more open than [[Secure Digital Card]] (though the two are largely interchangeable, if used carefully. SD-card is more open than [[xD-Picture Card]] or [[Sony Memory Stick]]. [[CompactFlash]], based closely on [[Advanced Technology Attachment|ATA]], is more open than SD-card.
* [[USB]] appears to be more open than [[FireWire]]. USB standards can be downloaded for free, and there do not appear to be any licensing fees if one does not use the USB-certified logos.  FireWire ports are covered by dozens of patents; these patents can be licensed for $0.25 per device with no minimum or annual fees.

=== Examples outside of computer technology ===
* One of the earliest and most successful examples of an independent standards organization promoting open standards that could be freely used by hobbyists and commercial manufacturers alike has been the [[National Model Railroad Association]]. Prior to the NMRA's inception, most manufacturers had their own proprietary standards for track, wheels, and so forth, and it was quite rare for commercial models made by different manufacturers to operate well together. In 1935, the hobbyists took charge, forming the NMRA, developing open standards to promote free interchange of models, and making it known that even among non-member hobbyists, compliance with those standards would be worth more to a manufacturer than any intentional incompatibility could possibly be.

End of commented out section merged in from "Legitimacy of standards"~~~~ 
-->