Breathalyzer source code must be disclosed

TalkBack 17 of 34:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Sorry, I disagree.

The government exists to serve the public interest, and has very strict requirements regarding transparency. And I believe the government can and should be much more open than it is today. Business interests are always secondary to transparency and accountability in government.

No company is required to do business with the government. If a company feels that protecting its own IP is more valuable than dealing with the openness of the government, then it always has the right not to participate. That's the ultimate right for a business. Conversely, it is the government has the right to solicit bids from business who DO choose to participate. And those who do participate will be awarded with a government contract. But if a business wants to participate, then it has to be able to deliver an open, transparent solution. That's the way things should be. The customer sets the requirements, the producer fulfills the solution or chooses not to participate. That's the way business works.

I don't care if we're talking about a document standard (Massachusetts), devices for law enforcement (this issue), or (electronic) voting systems. The principle is the same in all cases.

Anton, I know you have a big problem anytime a customer requests IP as part of the deal. You feel that there are no, or very few reasons, why a company should ever be required to disclose IP. You feel that IP is synonymous with money. You feel that the principle of IP is "sacred", and anything other than a strong IP regime is tantamount to anti-capitalism.

I, however, fundamentally disagree. I understand that competitive advantage is important, and that there are good reasons for not disclosing secrets. I understand that IP allows a return on investment on research and development, or artistic endeavors. So I don't advocate abolishing IP or saying that everyone has to do the "open source" route.

HOWEVER, I believe that there are many interests that trump IP. One of those interests is a transparent government. If we're talking about devices that can ruin a person's life by manipulating his criminal record, or even say a credit rating, then I think the public should settle for much more transparency than mere "testing" and "approval" by some "government approved" panel and "following procedures".

And there is NO coercion here-- like I said upfront, no one is forced to do business with the government. If disclosing IP is uncomfortable to you or a company, simply don't get involved. Its just like open source-- if you are philosophically opposed to open source, then that's okay--no one is forcing you to use it.

As time moves forward, I believe that we will increasingly see more and more customers stipulate opening up IP as part of their requirements. Particularly from governments, which have transparency and other requirements that trump "lowest cost". And this is a just and proper thing. Its so funny how the IP industry is fond of EULAs and claim there's a "negotiation", but whine loudly as soon as there is actually a customer big and powerful enough to truly negotiate terms, instead of getting shafted by a "take it or leave it" EULA.

Posted by: Root User   Posted on: 11/04/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now