i knew a little bit about the quarrel: osi vs sna from ibm vs tcp/ip. but i haven't interpreted that fact so far to understand the european commission as a "promotor" of open systems. but it seems the european union had decided in the 80s not just to use osi, but also to support unix, at that time still in the hand of at&t.

osi (open systems interconnection) played one part in the game to push european computing business, but it didn't work out. well, also ibm lost that battle and tcp/ip finally won, without really playing the game, but just by being already there and - most importantly: functioning. jacques e.c. hymans case study on "open systems in the computer industry" deals with both stories: he describes how it came to osi and how to the desicion to use unix. (free access on ciao available for 30 days)

"Over dinner at the 1984 Cebit computer show in Hannover, Germany, the heads of the five biggest indigenous European vendors agreed to form a group dedicated to the purpose of providing a “common applications environment” based on Unix. At first, the group was called BISON (for Bull, ICL, Siemens, Olivetti, Nixdorf); when Philips joined the group, BISON changed its name to X/Open." (hymans, do too many chefs really spoil the broth? the european commission, bureaucratic politics and european integration, 1999)

another source for that at the bull's alumne site: "1984 Foundation of the X/Open Group by Bull, Nixdorf, Olivetti and Siemens to prepare common standards, based on UNIX. The Bull's intent was to have CEE (European Union) make those standards mandatory and consequently regulate the IBM de facto monopoly. The goal was also to limit the freedom of UNIX evolution by AT&T labs. The X/Open group was soon open to U.S. and other Companies and the strategic role decreased. Bull's active role in X/Open lead to its solicitation by IBM to found Open Systems Foundation."

well the french left out the english - as always, it seems. i just recall a conversation with raymond steele who was/¿is? sitting in one or another eu-board, that discussed the strategy for "how to go on" with umts. anyhow ICL of great britain - now fujitsu - was with the x/open group.

cooperations of european vendors was not by any means natural, heymans write. the first experience in this regard was made in the 70s by philips, siemens and the french "compagnie internationale pour l'informatique (CII). they formed unidata. but the dutch/german/french collaboration failed already in the same decade.

"Kompromisse waren an der Tagesordnung, was zu allseitiger Verärgerung führte. Es fehlte an der gebotenen Identifikation mit den vereinbarten Gemeinschaftsprojekten und mancher räumte seinen Eigenentwicklungen weiterhin Vorrang ein. Die Zusammenarbeit endete dann auch bevor sie Früchte tragen konnte, als auf Beschluss der französischen Regierung das gesamte inländische DV-Potenzial Frankreichs in der neu zu gründenden Gesellschaft CII-Honeywell-Bull konzentriert wurde. Die CII mußte also aus dem UNIDATA-Verbund ausscheiden. Damit war der Versuch, die Entwicklungskosten auf mehrere Schultern zu verteilen, gescheitert." (computermuseum münchen)

"european vendors primarily looked for overseas rather than intra-European alliances"(Mytelka and Delapierre 1987)

have to find those articles from h. landis gabel. book: Technical Standards and Competition in the Microcomputer Industry, in H. Landis Gabel (ed.), Product Standardization and Competitive Strategy, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 1987.

a guide to X/Open