Bravo to Massachusetts for raising the question.
to publicly connect open formats to a public policy purpose: “It is an
overriding imperative of the American democratic system that we cannot
have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format,
perhaps unreadable in the future, or subject to a proprietary system
license that restricts access.” [1]
At a September 16, 2005 meeting with the Mass Technology Leadership Council Kriss stated that he believes this is fundamentally an issue of sovereignty. [2]
While supporting the principle of private intellectual property rights,
he said sovereignty trumped any private company’s attempt to control
the state’s public records through claims of intellectual property. [3]
(from Wikipedia here)
But let’s be sure we are considering all the answers.
There are two types of business ecosystems out there, each with potential answers.
1. There is the open business ecosystem based on Web 2.0 and RSS and OPML.
The RSS and OPML-enabled revolution of Web 2.0 is participative in the
most revolutionary sense. Millions of individuals are now contributing
to the Web 2.0 revolution as content producers and writers of web
services. Thousands of small companies are being formed.
These companies are dedicated to providing low-cost, high-performance interoperable services.
2. There are the closed, big company-dominated business ecosystems, encompassing Sun and IBM, as well as Microsoft.
The “openness” of solutions originating in the big company ecosystems is based on manipulating impenetrable processes such as OASIS that only the largest firms can afford to play in. Here is a summary–favorable
to OASIS as far as I can see–of the process. What many observers
note is that despite being an “open process” the cost of
participation in OASIS and similar organizations is enormous, the
complexity is profound, and decisions require years. As a practical
matter small and medium-sized software and services providers as well
as individuals are locked out.
No matter how open the formats, the large-company sector of the
software industry is an oligopoly. It will not matter, at the end
of the day, which company Massachusetts sources from. The result will be
“open” solutions that are enormously complex and that require costly
implementation and ongoing services, regardless of the cost of the
underlying software licenses. This is because the ecosystems of
these companies are closed, and the dominant providers will find a way, absent
competition, to take their pound of flesh from their customers.
Business ecosystem #1 has the better answers.
It is business ecosystem #1, based on Web 2.0 and RSS and OPML that provides the truly open, disruptive alternative
to closed formats, expensive software licenses and isolated silos of
information. This is because the industry is an open ecosystem,
with many many players. Most of those reading this post belong to the
Web
2.0 world. Let’s make sure we tell the world of government,
especially here in Massachusetts, that we exist.
P.S. Note to politicians in Massachusetts: NONE of the big
companies involved in the current dispute are headquartered here in
Massachusetts.
Many many of the small and medium-sized firms at the forefront of the
Web 2.0 revolution are headquartered in Massachusetts and/or funded by
venture capital companies located here.
Massachusetts was the center of the minicomputer revolution.
Massachusetts was bypassed in the personal computer revolution, with
the exception of a few companies like Lotus Development. Massachusetts
gained in the Internet years, creating strong companies that in many
cases weathered boom and bust better than their west coast
competitors. Now we are entering the Web 2.0, RSS, OPML era.
Massachusetts is at near parity with other regions in terms of Web
2.0. I am sure that many Web 2.0 entrepreneurs will be pleased to help
their state government adopt new technology solutions–and I am equally
sure that building a robust base of Web 2.0 companies here in
Massachusetts will be good for our citizens.
This something to think about. We can promote economic growth in
our state through buying Web 2.0 information technology
solutions. And because these solutions are more advanced than the
alternatives, we can also give our state agencies an advantage.
