Re: What the lawyers and suits think
2004-09-13 11:43:52
I think her last paragraph is very important:
: So the trick is to get the lawyers and the suits to realize that your
: concerns aren't just something they have to endure - they are
: something they have to satisfy.
A similar concept needs to be considered by us: We need to realize
that lawyer/suit concerns aren't just something we have to endure -
they are something we have to satisfy.
Most importantly, I believe, and a point I perhaps did not highlight
pointedly enough, is this: the lawyers and suits are the corporate
decision-makers. They generally do *not* take the concerns of the
technical people into account when making either legal or other
corporate decisions. Considerations regarding technical infrastructure
are _so_ far removed from the boardroom, from the revenue and profit
bottom lines, that typically the full extent of any consideration which
technical concerns about a new product or project are given is a
rolling of the eyes. It's no different than when technical people
raise concerns about a product to the sales people - the sales people
just keep on selling (I know you all know what I mean here).
It is in this climate that people in this group are saying "but someone
who has intellectual property rights to this would _never_ do that,
because it would be wrong - or would not be the best for the Internet".
That's horribly naive.
Their motive for wanting a product to be deployed is _very_ different
than your motive. It has to do with marketshare, consumer capture and
retention, or, at best, a solution to _their own problem_. This is
true of *any* company, even primarily anti-spam companies, which have
moved from garage to office suite, and *particularly* true of those
which have moved from "a few guys doing something they care deeply
about" to investors and shareholders. At that point, assume they are
in it to make money. Moreover, assume their very reason for existing
is to make money, and _anything else_ is a *very* distant second. Not
only that, but they are *required* to put the bottom line first, and do
what is best for the shareholders - or they face unpleasant things like
shareholder lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty.
Now, I disagree that the tech guys - the people who are in the front
lines of deployment - *you guys* [collectively herein referred to as
"the Geek Front" :-) ] - have to satisfy that drive to put the
corporate and shareholder interests first (and I don't really think
that's what Wayne meant, but just in case anyone read it that way). My
point, and I do have one, is that the lawyers and suits need to have an
epiphany, and need to realize that this is a situation which is turned
on its head from what they are used to - that not only do they have to
take the concerns of the Geek Front into account - but that without the
Geek Front they've got nothing. That if they don't satisfy the Geek
Front, their product will _never_ reach the marketshare they want and
need. That's a very unusual situation. It's outside of their
experience, outside of their vocabulary - outside of their realm of
imagination that there could be a time when the tech people - the
people who actually *run* the Internet, would tell _them_ how it's
going to be, rather than the other way around. But that's what has to
happen, and I submit that the _only_ way a major corporation is going
to be able to "own" authentication or anything else is if they get that
they can only own it by *not* owning it.*
Anne
[*Of course, personally what I think should happen is that we need to
take advantage of the fact that we have the best and brightest minds in
email infrastructure technology *right here*, and that you guys should
develop a wholly new standard (be it based on SPF or otherwise),
completely unencumbered, commit it to open source, and then adopt the
h*ll out of it. *That* is what is going to get everyone on board with
a new standard, because a) it will be a level playing field that b)
nearly everyone will adopt except for c) those who have corporate greed
or ego tied up in the process, and d) they will have to fall in line
when everyone else adopts the standard. YOU guys are in a unique
position of both knowing what is best for the 'net, *and* getting to
dictate that standard - *if* you do it decisively and quickly. But
that's just me.]
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: What the lawyers and suits think,
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <=
|
|
|