Open Standards
This is not a defintion nor explanation yet, but a series of useful citations. We are exploring the different aspects of this topic in a separate category with many different articles.
Typology
From Joel West at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_6/west/index.html
"an “open” standard usually has two justifications: open in the process, or open in the outcome (cf. Greenberg, 1990). The open process is the perspective of the standards creators, and is normally associated a particular type of standards–setting organization (SSO) — a formal standards development organization rather than a standards consortium or private firm. The process fairness is achieved through the structure of the SSO: for example, Krechmer (2006) identifies key elements of process fairness as open meetings, due process in voting, and transparency of meeting outcomes.
The other form of openness is openness of outcomes. Buyers seek an open enough outcome to assure competing implementations of the standard, in hopes of providing price competition and thus lower prices." (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_6/west/index.html)
Discussion
Why Standards are Important
Jonathan Schwartz of SUN, in his blog at http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20060515
"When Thomas Edison first introduced the lightbulb, he held patents he tried to wield against potential competitors - he wanted to own the client (the bulb) and the server (the dynamo). He failed. Standards emerged around voltage and plugs, and GE Energy (formerly, Edison General Electric), to this day, remains one of the most profitable and interesting businesses around. How big would the power business be today if you could only buy bulbs and appliances from one company? A far sight smaller, I'd imagine. Standards grew markets and value.
Then there was the civil war era in the US, when locomotive companies all had their own railroad widths and shapes - designed only to work with their rail cars and steam engines. How'd they fare? They failed, standards emerged that unified railways and rail lines, and that era created massive wealth, connecting economies within economies. Standards grew markets and value."
Open vs. Proprietary Standards
From: Irving Wladawsky-Berger, the Vice President of Technical Strategy and Innovation of IBM
"If a crunch comes between the interests of the shareholders and interests of the community, a business has to choose the interests of the shareholders. A business creating a standard that it controls and says is "open" and that people should "trust them" is not robust from that perspective. Business should prevent itself from getting into these situation. Working with neutral professional organizations makes it impossible for such conflicts to corrupt the process and is key to good open standards."
Cited by Joi Ito at http://joi.ito.com/archives/2006/01/17/irving_wladawskybergers_definition_of_open_standards.html
hy Standards cannot be fully open in a for-profit environment
From Joel West at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_6/west/index.html
"no standardization activity that is economically self–supporting can be perfectly open: from an economic perspective, there are limits to openness (West, 2006b). Simcoe (2006) observes that in standardization, firms face an inherent conflict between value creation and value capture. A completely open standard creates lots of value, none of which can be captured; a completely closed standard captures 100 percent of no value created. So a profit–maximizing firm must seek an intermediate point that partially accomplishes both goals.
Thus to pay the bills, there has to be value capture somewhere: everything has some level of openness and some level of proprietary–ness [1]. Typically, standards that are open in one area are often not open in another." (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_6/west/index.html)