Thursday, 13 April 2017

RED – red light because of the Radio Equipment Directive, unless...

Let this be my Easter egg for you... Hoping that if we search for eggs we will find the right surprise for a way out of what has become a dead end situation.
What is the problem: The new Radio Equipment Directive (RED), successor of the R&TTE, was approved by the European Parliament and the Council with a transition time ending mid of June this year. That means all radio equipment which is brought to the European market needs to prove compliance with this RED by June – or should not be allowed to be sold in Europe (i.e. should not be entitled for getting the CE mark).
For being compliant a large number of European Standards (>200) have to be reworked and updated, listed in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU) and implemented.
Now, due to normal procedural matters on all sides the elapse time for industry to work on these standards (work taking place in ETSI), for the public enquiry process before final approval is given (following the rules of WTO/TBT) and for the European Commission to cross-check and list and publish the standards in the OJEU has become more and more tight. Perhaps this could have been anticipated as the Directive was finalised, but, well, it wasn't. No one to blame for that... Finger pointing never helps to solve a problem anyway.
Status as of today is: at best less than half of the European Standards needed will be listed in the OJEU by June. This means a threat to many products and technologies because demonstrating compliance with the requirements laid down in the RED is not possible. The New Approach cannot be applied. Notified Bodies who could provide third party testing don't have the European Standards available, either, and thus have no grounds for doing the testing. As a consequence there is high uncertainty, if not fear, with many industry players about their ability to continue bringing their products and technologies to the European market after mid June. Especially SMEs are concerned about their bare existence.
So what's the way out? A number of work-arounds and process optimisations have been discussed and applied already. They have helped to accelerate the processes, but it is clear today that they cannot help to solve the issue. Nine mothers cannot give birth to a baby in 1 month.
Some governments – apparently spearheaded by Italy and Germany – proposed to go for a concerted action for extending the transition time by 1 to 2 years. National governments have wrote to the Commission proposing such a way out.
In practice this would mean that the Commission prepares a legal act to open up just and only the respective paragraph in the RED that deals with the transition time and change the date. Of course, preparation and probing talks with both the European Parliament and the Council are required to get consensus on such a procedure. But if all institutions would agree such a change could be done in about 8 to 12 weeks.
So far the Commission has been reluctant to go for this. But the situation is getting more and more critical and the number of voices who see such an extension as the only and best way to prevent total chaos and create clarity in the market place increases. And the New Approach, success story for Europe, could continue to be applied.
I may be naive but I also tend to support the extension with the procedure outlined above. I don't think that anyone should be afraid to be blamed – it is a collective problem and will be solved collectively. Initiating the respective process would, in my opinion, not be a sign of disgrace or of shame but a move of greatness for driving for an all-encompassing solution.
Let's not try to square the circle in any way – let's accept that the solution may be this kind of Easter egg, brought forward by egg heads with the courage to solve an issue and prevent that the RED will always be considered with the red light for industry and consumers.

Friday, 10 March 2017

Deutschlands Industrie 4.0 Expertinnen

Anlässlich des Weltfrauentages am Mittwoch dieser Woche hat die Plattform Industry of Things ein Feature den Frauen gewidmet, die in Deutschland erwiesenermaßen Expertinnen auf dem Gebiet Industrie 4.0 sind und eine Führungsrolle einnehmen. Interessant zu lesen.

Glückwunsch an gleich drei Kolleginnen IBM, die unter diesen 13 Expertinnen aufgeführt sind: Renate Franken, Lisa Reehten und Renate Stücka.

Thursday, 16 February 2017

Blockchain - The question is not, why, it is, why not...

Funny enough I was recently engaged in some discussions about where
standardisation is going. As someone claimed, a group of distinguished
people sitting around a u-form shaped table arrangement in a meeting
room discussing a paper document is one way of setting standards - it's
the standard way, if you like. But it is more and more becoming *just*
one way.

There are other ways, more agile ways of driving
technologies and setting standards - and of making interoperability
real. Plug fests and hackathons are prime examples. Get together, do
some coding, learn about how to use and combine technologies - great
ways to promote market adoption and achieve technology innovation on the
basis of commonly agreed methods. Call this standards or not - it's
successful, it's agile, it's innovative.

Worth watching this summary video of the recent Dutch Blockchain Hackathon. Great spirit, you can feel the innovation. Standardisers will have to think about the way technology is brought forward.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

EU Commission Workshop on Cloud Standards and Open Source

Mid January I had the pleasure to chair a workshop which the Commission had asked OpenForum Europe to co-organise. The topic was Cloud standards and open source. This workshop was part of the action plan following the EC Communication on ICT Standardisation Priorities where a better collaboration between standardisation and open source on Cloud technologies is a key action.

The workshop report as well as all other information on the workshop are now available on the Commission website. It was a great honour to chair this event and thus contribute to a very good and intense exchange on the topic. I believe that the workshop could clarify that there are multiple ways of both co-existence and co-operation between standardisation and open source. There is probably no such thing like a golden path for successful collaboration, yet there are a number of good ways of interaction, of making use of open source in standardisation and of implementing standards in open source. All of this driving innovation, openness and market adoption.

The workshop also identified some concrete proposals for possible next steps in facilitating the interaction of standardisation and open source and in promoting both from a Commission level in general.

All in all I very much enjoyed the event. Thanks again to all participants for their excellent and high quality contributions and their focussed work on that day. Thanks to the colleagues from OFE for their perfect organisation. And thanks to the Commission for hosting this event.

Thursday, 2 February 2017

On Inventors, Implementers, Innovators

So here's medias in res: Both inventors and implementers can be innovators.
I wrote that in several papers, said that in several presentations since I started reflecting about the relation of standardisation and innovation. There is a fundamental confusion when it comes to what innovation means in the context of standardisation. And this confusion has been reinforced in the ongoing debates about patents and standards.
Basically the issue is that invention and innovation are confused and that very often patent holders are presented as “innovators” and put opposite to “implementers”. In reality patent holders are first of all inventors, a patent is granted for an invention – not for innovation. The definition provided by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is very clear in this respect: “A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention ...”
Why does that matter? Because implementers can be gigantic innovators. You might even argue whether innovation today is to large extend in process innovation and technology integration – both matters of implementing technologies and standards. The internet and the world wide web are prime examples for that. Internet of Things (IoT), Digitisation of Industry, etc. are others currently leading the innovation agenda all over the world.
This plea to differentiate better between invention, innovation and implementation does not mean to diminish the value and importance of base technology invention, nor the patent system. By no means. But it intends to value the contribution of implementations to innovation and avoid and correct the impression that implementers would stand opposite to innovators.
A clear differentiation also has the potential to lead to a better and more differentiated discussion on the relations of standardisation and innovation. Basically, there are two aspects when it comes to standardisation and innovation that should always be considered and that are substantial for making business decisions regarding which modes for making patented technologies available suit the market best. In a simplified way the following two cases may be distinguished:
On the one hand, for some standards it may be important to have leading, state-of-the-art base technologies included. These are often (based on) patented inventions. It may, therefore, be important that the inventors (!) get some incentive to contribute their technologies and be able to get some return-on-investment for their R&D work. In other words: to have some patent protection for patents that are essential for a standard, so called SEPs (Standards Essential Patents). The proper mechanism here is a FRAND IPR policy where the patent holder (who ideally is also the inventor and not just “someone” who acquired the patent) gives a promise to license his SEP(s) on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis to implementers. Actual royalty rates are then agreed on in bilateral negotiations.
On the other hand, in some standardisation cases the prime consideration may be to have a standard available and broadly adopted in the market place. These standards often form the basis for innovation at the level of the implementation of the standards and on top of them. And often such standards address interoperability, APIs, data formats, etc. In order to promote the broad adoption of such standards, usually referred to as Open Standards, industry agreed to have these standards available on a Royalty-free basis and leading global IT standards setting organisations implemented respective IPR policies, e.g. OASIS and W3C. If patent holders (inventors) would bring in patented technologies into such a standard they need to be ready to grant a license on a Royalty-free basis – or even “restriction-free”.
The latter case also has a lot of relevance in the context of Open Source. Open Standards that are available Royalty-free are implementable in Open Source – at least with least issues and restrictions.
So bottom line: please be precise (and fair) when talking about inventors, implementers, innovators. Both inventors and implementers can be innovators. An SEP is the result of an invention, not of innovation, yet it may be – and probably should be – innovative. In the debate about patents and standards it is inventors (patent holders) versus implementers. And very often an organisation is both, sometimes inventor, sometimes implementer, and hopefully an innovator throughout. 
Clarity matters for an informed discussion and for taking informed decisions.

Monday, 30 January 2017

European Parliament - Hearing on Standardisation

Last Thursday I had the pleasure of being invited as speaker to a public hearing of the IMCO committee (Internal Market and Consumer Protection) of the European Parliament. Under the leadership of rapporteur MEP Marlene Mizzi the Parliament is working on a report on "European Standards for the 21st Century".
 We were 9 speakers contributing our perspectives on standardisation. It was a good event - you can watch it at the IMCO media archive.