In a capitalist world, the often-overlooked systems of technical standards offer a rare example of economic collaboration that prioritizes the public good over profit.
I think these guys are overstating things a bit. The whole reason technical standards exist is to facilitate interoperability, and in most cases this interoperability leads to increased trade. It’s no accident that the first standards were developed during the industrial revolution, where we first started using machines to make parts, and they needed to fit together (like screws and nuts). Then, when the railroads came along, we needed new standards for things like track gague, because without it one countries’ trains couldn’t use the next countries’ track, making cross-border commerce more expensive. It’s also when we started to standardize time (because before the railroads, “noon” was whenever the sun was directly overhead, so varied by region).
These standards weren’t developed altruistically, they were developed to generate more trade. There is a cost to developing them, and companies spend that money in the hopes of making more later. In theory, anyone can access the standards that the ITU or IEEE create, but to participate you need to show up at their meetings, and there is a cost to that. Large companies can afford to send key smart people to those meetings, out of the profit from the products they sell. What is more capitalistic than that?
The standards process is anti-monopolist, though. The reason why they are as “open” as they are is to prevent a single entity from patenting key parts of the standard and gate-keeping access. There have been patented things in standards, but the SDO mandates that the parent-holder disclose it up front, and will not let it in the standard unless certain terms are met (which vary by SDO). It is not anti-capitalist, though, but rather it is a cabal of companies agreeing they won’t let any one of them gatekeep the rest.
The development of standards doesn’t have to be seen as capitalist, though. There are benefits for non-capitalist economies to define standards as a way to achieve interoperability across different devices. For instance, I don’t see why a communist country wouldn’t standardize a power plug.
Yeah I believe that standardisation is beneficial in general whether it’s capitalism or not. In fact I believe it’s even more beneficial for a non-capitalist society, since yes you could not use the standard but nobody would be able to afford to come up with everything themselves. Unlike companies like apple that can afford having their own proprietary ecosystem including the lightning port. In that case standards could be maintained by non-profit organisations consisting of other organisations with a donation based model. Which is what happens in the real world except for the part where companies step in and put lots of money for their own benefit and to be able to pull these organisations in the direction they desire.
The concept of standardisation isn’t necessary capitalist but the form it exists in today is shaped by the capitalist world we live in.
I think these guys are overstating things a bit. The whole reason technical standards exist is to facilitate interoperability, and in most cases this interoperability leads to increased trade. It’s no accident that the first standards were developed during the industrial revolution, where we first started using machines to make parts, and they needed to fit together (like screws and nuts). Then, when the railroads came along, we needed new standards for things like track gague, because without it one countries’ trains couldn’t use the next countries’ track, making cross-border commerce more expensive. It’s also when we started to standardize time (because before the railroads, “noon” was whenever the sun was directly overhead, so varied by region).
These standards weren’t developed altruistically, they were developed to generate more trade. There is a cost to developing them, and companies spend that money in the hopes of making more later. In theory, anyone can access the standards that the ITU or IEEE create, but to participate you need to show up at their meetings, and there is a cost to that. Large companies can afford to send key smart people to those meetings, out of the profit from the products they sell. What is more capitalistic than that?
The standards process is anti-monopolist, though. The reason why they are as “open” as they are is to prevent a single entity from patenting key parts of the standard and gate-keeping access. There have been patented things in standards, but the SDO mandates that the parent-holder disclose it up front, and will not let it in the standard unless certain terms are met (which vary by SDO). It is not anti-capitalist, though, but rather it is a cabal of companies agreeing they won’t let any one of them gatekeep the rest.
The development of standards doesn’t have to be seen as capitalist, though. There are benefits for non-capitalist economies to define standards as a way to achieve interoperability across different devices. For instance, I don’t see why a communist country wouldn’t standardize a power plug.
Yeah I believe that standardisation is beneficial in general whether it’s capitalism or not. In fact I believe it’s even more beneficial for a non-capitalist society, since yes you could not use the standard but nobody would be able to afford to come up with everything themselves. Unlike companies like apple that can afford having their own proprietary ecosystem including the lightning port. In that case standards could be maintained by non-profit organisations consisting of other organisations with a donation based model. Which is what happens in the real world except for the part where companies step in and put lots of money for their own benefit and to be able to pull these organisations in the direction they desire.
The concept of standardisation isn’t necessary capitalist but the form it exists in today is shaped by the capitalist world we live in.