I attended a cabinet office meeting just before going on holiday last week. Mark Ballard (who did not attend) posted about that meeting. My initial comments to Mark. More follows later.
There are a number of areas where your article over simplifies things
I will blog more on my blog later this week, but here are some initial comments
a) As I understood it, this was a first of a series of meetings – and not a ‘result’ as you imply.
b) There were many other attendees you did not include – ex from Cabinet office, Ministry of justice etc
c) You mention ‘telecoms’ – and yes – that’s where I come from as well. It is overly simplistic to exclude telecoms from the argument of open standards. When we include Telecoms, we also see the value of IPR in standards. Many successful standards like GSM which have licensing that includes IPR – and have been proven to be successful. We will see the same discussions for HTML5 as well ie it is a web standard but with implications for the mobile web
d) Many in telecoms see it as a slippery slope – ex the standards hub - covers a wider discussion of standards. So, I see an artificial dichotomy in separating telecoms and hence agree to the belief that competition and innovation will be enabled through a more telecoms-like standards approach – ex through FRAND.
e) Excluding such companies and innovation will be detrimental to the interests of UK companies and startups ex a UK company like picochip depends on IPR to create innovation
I look forward to continuing the discussion