Simply simplistic

European Commissioner for Competition Policy Neelie Kroes, speaking last month at an OpenForum Europe Breakfast seminar, delivered a speech entitled 'Being open about standards', in the course of which she said:
"It is simplistic to assume that because some intellectual property protection is good, that such protection should therefore be absolute in all circumstances.

It is simplistic to assume that because standardisation sometimes brings benefits,
more standardisation will bring more benefits.

It is simplistic to assume that if the best approach is sometimes to base a standard
on proprietary technology, then that is always the best approach.

And it is simplistic to assume that we can fix on a standard today, without paying
attention to the risk of being locked-in tomorrow".
Indeed, says the IPKat, but he can't help wondering whether the somewhat hostile use of the word "simplistic" is reserved solely for the arguments in favour of intellectual property protection -- or does the Commissioner ever use the word to describe any of the propositions raised in support of competition policy?
Simply simplistic Simply simplistic Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, July 13, 2008 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. I have great difficulties in understanding the logic of some of Ms Kroes' arguments. However, questions about logic were raised more than once when she was a minister in Holland...
    In respect of "the many bad patents" she appears to rely on the allegations of the EPO management.
    The TMPDF in their also otherwise excellent paper
    asked for the basis of such far reaching conclusions. No response yet...


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.