Two tips I see are that OpenMPE must be seen as stable, in for the long
run, and that we must be willing to implement new standards.

Frank Gribbin
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:14:07 -0500, Mark Wonsil <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>No opinion, just read this before I got the post and wondered what some
>think it means to OpenMPE.
>
>http://www.computerworld.com/news/2003/story/0,11280,78694,00.html
>
>IT's Monopoly Addiction
>
>By DAN GILLMOR
>FEBRUARY 24, 2003
>
>Content Type: Opinion
>Source: Computerworld
>
>Information technology folks must love monopolies. Otherwise, you wouldn't
>help create them.
>
>Sure, you complain about lock-in, vendor arrogance, high costs and all the
>other woes that come with monopolies and the cozy oligopolies that seem to
>arise in so many industries -- but notably in IT.
>
>I don't think you're stupid or naive when you resign yourself to your fate.
>You are clearly aware of the upside and downside of doing business with
>dominant vendors. But you're addicted. Or, in pop psychology lingo, you're
>co-dependent.
>
>The easiest explanation is the near-universal wish for standards.
>Competition -- such as railroad tracks with different gauges -- can be
>messy, as we've seen again and again. Users and suppliers gravitate toward
>single standards.
>
>In technology development circles, no one wants to test a variety of
devices
>and platforms, much less develop for all of them. One of my brothers, a
>software guy, says he'd be happiest -- in theory -- with just one operating
>system.
>
>It still seems obvious to me that, in a world where information is the
>currency of the future, it's dangerous to allow one company or a small
group
>of companies to control the standards. But it seems less obvious,
>apparently, to the U.S. government and most buyers of technology.
>
>Monocultures in the physical world are widely understood to be risky. We
are
>moving that way, unfortunately, in things like farming -- where a single
>virus could, in theory, wipe out much of the world's corn crop in a single
>season, leading to untold human suffering. Yet our food supply is based on
>monocultures because they're more efficient. Today.
>
>And that leads to the other main reason why monopolies, duopolies and
>oligopolies keep springing up: They're good business, largely because
>they're more stable -- temporarily, at any rate -- for buyers as well as
>sellers.
>
>The desire for stability and accountability can be summed up in the
>once-popular saying "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Substitute
>Cisco, Microsoft or other big names, and the idea is much the same.
>
>When IBM was absolute master of the IT universe, technology wasn't changing
>as quickly as it does today. But even then, buyers were looking for a level
>of security, an assurance that what they were buying would still be working
>tomorrow and that someone would stand behind it.
>
>The velocity of technological progress today gives even greater advantage,
>certainly in the short term, to the dominant companies, and for some of the
>same reasons. But does it also lead to long-term power? I believe it does,
>largely because of people's -- and institutions' -- logical aversion to
>disruption.
>
>The path of least resistance is to buy into whatever is dominant today.
>That's a mistake.
>
>I have a policy for my personal technology purchasing. I balance my
>dependence, supporting nondominant companies whenever possible. I support
>worthwhile competitors, and sometimes I give up some small conveniences in
>the process -- provided, of course, that the choices I make don't put me at
>a serious disadvantage in my work.
>
>That's one approach. IT can do some of this, but it should employ another
>tactic, too: Push much harder for open, non-owned standards.
>
>Cost is only one issue. The other is safety. I'm betting that open
standards
>will soon be seen as the best approach for security, an increasingly
>important notion in a dangerous world. Disregard this at everyone's risk.
>
>Dan Gillmor is technology columnist at the San Jose Mercury News. Contact
>him at [log in to unmask]
>
>Source: Computerworld