I find I've been wondering about that a lot lately, especially since I have very little patience for the practice of lobbying in the first place.
There just seems to be something inherently unhealthy about any system that rewards deep pockets with influence and access.
I get especially antsy when I see those deep pockets being used to influence decisions on adopting technology standards. If there's any decision that should be made totally independent of self-serving vendor lobbyists, it's the adoption by a government or an international organization of a technology standard. Such decisions must be made on the basis of nothing other than what is in the best interests of the people being served by that body.
As I continue to monitor the controversy over Massachusetts' plan to adopt the OASIS OpenDocument format standard for office productivity applications, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that Microsoft will ultimately succeed in beating the state into submission. It's no secret that the Microsoft lobbying machine has pulled out all the stops to compel the state to abandon its initiative to adopt OpenDocument, a standard Microsoft clearly sees as a serious competitive threat. And given that Microsoft has virtually unlimited funds to throw at the challenge, it's difficult to imagine that those within the state's IT apparatus who continue to push the standard will prevail.
The Massachusetts case is something of a red flag. It makes me wonder how widespread and institutionalized the effort is on the part of technology vendors to influence standards-related decisions. In fact, I can't help but wonder what they're doing behind the scenes to sway the standards bodies themselves.
That's why I was intrigued by the news last week that the International Standards Organization had rebuffed China's submission of the WLAN Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) security protocol for consideration as an international standard for wireless LANs. The ISO voted overwhelmingly to reject WAPI in favor of the IEEE's 802.11i submission.
There has been no stronger voice in favor of 802.11i, and in opposition to WAPI, than Intel -- another vendor with almost unfathomably deep pockets. The last thing Intel wants is any market segmentation that would create competition for its Centrino mobile technology, which incorporates 802.11i. The prospect of China producing WAPI chip sets under the aegis of an ISO certification no doubt sent some pretty uncomfortable chills through the Intel hierarchy.
So, did Intel exert some sort of influence or pressure on the ISO? Not surprisingly, the Chinese certainly think so. Cao Jun, general manager of IWNComm, the Chinese company that developed the WAPI technology, earlier this month alleged that Intel had engaged in backroom politicking with the ISO.
Moreover, a Chinese industry group that backs WAPI, the Broadband Wireless IP Standard Working Group, maintains that the IEEE had spread misinformation about WAPI, and it wants an investigation into the IEEE's activities during the voting process. The group accused the IEEE of acting "selfishly and irresponsibly" to protect a monopoly commercial interest -- an apparent reference to Intel.
Obviously, all of this could well be nothing more than sour grapes on the part of the Chinese, who have invested heavily in WAPI. But their concerns merit serious consideration. Given the fact that fairly zealous lobbying is standard procedure in the U.S. business community, it's no wonder the Chinese are suspicious.
Don Tennant is editor in chief of Computerworld. Contact him at don_tennant@computerworld.com.