As
I've already blogged, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts is promoting a new IT policy that seems intended
to exclude proprietary software products from state use.
As I've examined the policy, it seems to go far beyond what is required to achieve the stated goals, and seems to have crossed over into a philosophical opposition to proprietary software. I think that's the only explanation for the policy. Massachusetts seems to have been capture by the Commonists. Perhaps it should be no surprise that the first U.S. state to fall to the Commonists would be Massachusetts . . .
My submission for public comment on the policy is reproduced below.
As I've examined the policy, it seems to go far beyond what is required to achieve the stated goals, and seems to have crossed over into a philosophical opposition to proprietary software. I think that's the only explanation for the policy. Massachusetts seems to have been capture by the Commonists. Perhaps it should be no surprise that the first U.S. state to fall to the Commonists would be Massachusetts . . .
My submission for public comment on the policy is reproduced below.
Statement of Tom Giovanetti
President,
Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)
Submitted to Peter Quinn
Chief Information Officer,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Regarding ETRM v.3.5 Public Review and Data Formats
Mr. Quinn,
Please accept this submission for your comment period ending Sept. 9
After a review of the proposed Massachusetts Open Formats standards, I’m forced to conclude that the recommendations have gone beyond what is best for the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and far beyond what is necessary to ensure interoperability, and both forward and backward compatibility.
The right policy to be pursued is the policy that is best for residents of the Commonwealth. My assumption is that Commonwealth residents would appreciate a solution that allows maximum compatibility and interoperability, while keeping costs as low as possible and the process as efficient as possible. It seems to me that the proposed regulation does not accomplish these goals.
I should also point out that the logic and arguments in my comments apply to any agencies that might be using either Corel proprietary software, such as their office suite, or IBM (Lotus) proprietary software, such as Lotus Notes, Domino, or WordPro. My comments are not necessarily only applicable to Microsoft products.
I would like to make the following comments:
1. First, perhaps the most egregious element of the proposed policy is that it not only specifies that a software product must support a particular open format, but insists that this format must be the default format in a particular company’s products.This insistence goes far beyond ensuring that Massachusetts agencies have the benefits of interoperability and standardization, and seems to be an attempt both to undermine a particular proprietary format, and also seems to be an attempt by a government to dictate the default format for the entire marketplace. If these are the goals of the policy, they go far beyond the policy considerations that have been articulated by the Commonwealth.
2. It strikes me that there is an enormous unnecessary cost to the Commonwealth if this policy is implemented, and I find no evidence from your website that any estimate has been performed as to the cost of this policy to the public or to state agencies.
The Commonwealth has already made an enormous investment in software licenses, and this investment will be wasted under this policy.
While industries have certainly found that there are certain software applications where open sourced or non-proprietary solutions can be economically justified, a recent Gartner Group report finds that there is no defensible return on investment (ROI) from switching from Microsoft office products to StarOffice or other open source options.
It would be interesting to know if the Commonwealth has conducted its own study that disagrees with this Gartner Group study.
3. The proposed standard fails to take into account the almost certain massive number of pre-existing documents, for which backward compatibility would seem to be a key “interoperability” issue.
This policy will require an enormous amount of document conversion, and this document conversion is necessary ONLY because of the exclusion of certain commonly-used standards already in use by the Commonwealth.
4. A move to XML as a standard for interoperability is an excellent idea. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, and gives preferential treatment to specific vendors and vendor types, and prohibits others. The proposed policy thus goes beyond what is necessary for convenience, interoperability, and forward-thinking, and crosses over into a philosophical attack on proprietary models of software innovation.
The evidence suggests that proprietary software companies are moving quickly to support XML standards. In fact, my recollection is that Corel has been a leader in the implementation of XML as a standard, going back to their Ventura Publisher product, which was among the first major applications to move to a native XML environment. Microsoft has also eagerly embraced XML, and the history of your discussions with Microsoft shows that Microsoft has worked with Massachusetts to reach a satisfactory arrangement.
a. It is ironic that the EU, which is engaged in a major antitrust action against Microsoft, has ENDORSED Microsoft’s approach to open licensing of the XML format. Yet while even the EU finds that Microsoft’s approach to open licensing of the XML standard is acceptable, the proposed policy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not.
b. It is also my understanding that discussions earlier in 2005 between Mass. CIO Kriss and Microsoft resulted in an agreement that the Open Format standard would include some Microsoft proprietary formats, and thus that these formats would be “deemed to be Open Formats because they will no longer have restrictions on their use.” The new proposed policy seems to ignore that understanding.
5. The proposed policy ignores the beneficial partnerships that could (and do) exist between government information offices and proprietary software companies. In fact, by standardizing on the proposed policy, Massachusetts users will be deprived of new innovations and features that will undoubtedly appear because of the innovative leadership of proprietary software development.
Ask yourself: which model of innovation first comes up with a bit of functionality, the “open” model or the proprietary model? Almost always, it is a proprietary company that introduces a new innovation, and then the “open” solutions try to find another way of delivering the same functionality. Why not work with those innovative companies, rather than ruling them out? There is no other conclusion from the proposed policy than that it is designed for the purpose of excluding proprietary products and formats.
6. Finally, the way the new policy has been developed is suspect. It is clear from documents on your own website that the CIO’s office publicly supported Microsoft’s approach with regard to its Office XML schemas by signing an agreement with Microsoft to include the open royalty-free licensing for Office formats within the Commonwealth’s policy.
Now, the Commonwealth is proposing a policy that is at odds not only with its investment in existing licenses, but also at odds with its previous agreement with Microsoft. Shouldn’t such a dramatic reversal, without comment or economic justification, be explained?
Frankly, after studying the way the proposed policy has been crafted, and especially the way it has developed even after reaching agreements with Microsoft, the only reasonable conclusion is that the policy is being driven by an animosity against a particular company, or at least a philosophical attempt to strike a blow at the proprietary software development model and to favor alternative software development models. Is this the proper role for government? Is this what represents the best value for residents of the Commonwealth?
I appreciate this opportunity to offer comment on the proposed policy, and I hope such public comments will be taken seriously. I’m convinced that if the Commonwealth implements this policy, history will demonstrate that it was a costly mistake.
Thomas A. Giovanetti
President,
Institute for Policy Innovation
www.ipi.org