Tim Smith wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ISO warned about possible patent violations of DIS29500 (aka OOXML)
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | I have just send the following email to ISO members (you can find
>> | some of their email addresses on the INCTIS website) to warn them
>> | about the possible patent ambush...
>> `----
>>
>> http://jeremywang67.blogspot.com/2008/01/iso-warned-about-possible-patent.html
>
> It's a rather broad patent covering most or all XML. That means it
> covers ODF just as much as it covers OOXML, so why do you try to make it
> sound like this is just an OOXML problem?
Oh, I see, it is a case of reading into a quote, is it not? Care to
discuss the article points or give your counterpoints instead of your
pointless accusations, hmmm, Timmy?
Here is what PJ has to say of this new patent troll effort:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051021183953795
[quote]
Scientigo says it met with 47 companies in the last few months, including
Microsoft and Oracle. So, they have a list of potential victims.
"Microsoft declined to say whether it has spoken to anyone from
Scientigo." Uh huh. Right. I know several, including a Microsoft spokesman
and Andy Updegrove of OASIS, are quoted by ZDNET as saying that the claims
are questionable and will be challenged. Many patent claims are
questionable. But the only way to know is by means of incredibly expensive
litigation, with an uncertain outcome. What kind of system is that?
Remember the ridiculous jury award to Kodak over Sun?
[/quote]
Here I find an interesting statement by PJ on past history of Microsoft
FUD. Article continued:
[quote]
Remember Michael Anderer indicating that Microsoft's strategy would be to
make sure FOSS is hit with one patent lawsuit after another until it lies
down and dies? Remember Andrew Orlowski writing about Ballmer's speech in
Asia, which he later tried to clarify, that Microsoft's weapon of choice
is not patent infringement lawsuits, but rather the *threat* of them, or
to put it plainly, FUD? That success for Microsoft would be in the
*bringing* of lawsuits (or having someone bring them), one after another,
whereby the ultimate outcome doesn't matter so much as being able to tie
up everyone in costly litigation, so it can herald the "news" that FOSS is
dangerous to use in the enterprise? More SCO, anyone?
So, could OASIS or somebody please explain to us again why it's acceptable
for standards policies to permit patents? How is that working out, guys?
The very thorough David Berlind provides some background on the OASIS
controversy and the discussion on all this.
[/quote]
Well, it will be interesting to see where all of this heads. If they go
after Sun and OASIS and ignore Microsoft, it will cause another SCO stir.
This is particularly interesting if things turn out that way, since the
company with the patent portfolio has historically been a partner of
Microsoft:
[quote]
About Market Central
Headquartered in Atlanta, Market Central, Inc. is a full service Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) provider. The Company has developed a
next-generation suite of CRM solutions that include proprietary, patented
software for data capture, cleansing, mining, integration, search, and
intelligent document recognition. The Company is also a Microsoft
development partner for MS CRM solutions. Market Central provides other
CRM services, such as campaign management, and operates a 900-seat contact
center to support the software line of business and provide outsourced
contact center services to select clients as part of their overall CRM
effort.
[/quote]
According to:
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/Common_Guidelines_01_March_07.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/242vj9
[quote]
3 Patent disclosure
As mandated by the Patent Policy in its paragraph 1, any party
participating in the work of the Organizations should, from the outset,
draw their attention to any known patent or to any known pending patent
application, either their own or of other organizations.
In this context, the words “from the outset” imply that such
information should be disclosed as early as possible during the
development of the Recommendation | Deliverable. This might not be
possible when the first draft text appears since at this time, the text
might be still too vague or subject to subsequent major modifications.
Moreover, that information should be provided in good faith and on a best
effort basis, but there is no requirement for patent searches.
[/quote]
and
[quote]
Whether the identification of the Patent took place before or after the
approval of the Recommendation | Deliverable, if the Patent Holder is
unwilling to license under paragraph 2.1 or 2.2 of the Patent Policy, the
Organizations will promptly advise the Technical Bodies responsible for
the affected Recommendation | Deliverable so that appropriate action can
be taken. Such action will include, but may not be limited to, a review of
the Recommendation | Deliverable or its draft in order to remove the
potential conflict or to further examine and clarify the technical
considerations causing the conflict.
[/quote]
Blogger in Roy's link indicated that in accordance with the ISO process,
committee members were informed of a potential conflict that could affect
the outcome of the current draft ISO approval process. This is the start
of what is described in the first quote above.
Per the latter quote, if there appears to be a valid claim, then the
corrective action is to remove the potential conflict and press on. This
is an elementary position of Gnu and FOSS, is it not?
Playing the "Devil's advocate", if it further delays OOXML approval
in ISO, perhaps it is an indication that Microsoft may be in store for a
dose of its own medicine?
--
HPT
|
|
