Microsoft releases updated Office-OpenOffice XML translator, ramps up document
interop efforts as ISO mulls OpenXML
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft today launched an update of its OpenXML and ODF translator for its
| Excel and Powerpoint applications and pledged to keep churning out more
| documentation to enable interoperability — and more patents to protect that
| IP.
|
| [...]
|
| Microsoft would not disclose pricing for its protocol licensing but pledged
| today that going forward it will be offered at a “reasonable and non
| discriminatory” (RAND) manner. Late last month — just days after Microsoft
| launched its multi-faceted interoperability initiative –the European Union
| fined Microsoft $1.4 billion for allegedly failing to comply with a
| three-year-old order to supply server interoperability data for competitors.
| Some rivals, including Samba and other open source players, argued in the
| past that that the costs were too prohibitive for ISVs.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2094
Interoperability by PR Is a Gambit
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft's idea of a Document Interoperability Initiative is to put together
| a bunch of businesses that profit from file format incompatibilities. And
| that is supposed to demonstrate—quoting from the press release—"Microsoft's
| commitment to implement a set of strategic changes in its technology and
| business practices to expand interoperability through the implementation of
| its interoperability principles."
`----
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/interoperability_by_pr_is_a_gambit.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
http://tinyurl.com/3yoot6
OpenOffice in a more open world
,----[ Quote ]
| OpenOffice.org has announced that the project will be moving from its current
| LGPLv2 licensing to the LGPLv3 with a coming version 3.0 of the open source
| office software suite.
|
| [...]
|
| Interestingly, OpenOffice.org’s announcement comes on the same day Microsot
| has made another interoperability announcement, this time centered on
| document formats.
`----
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2008/03/06/openoffice-in-a-more-open-world/
Simon Phipps was right
,----[ Quote ]
| I believed that no matter what the process, a standard should be judged by
| the product. Watching the fallout settle from the BRM in Geneva, I'm
| beginning to think that you were right and I was wrong.
|
| What you got right is that when a process is allowed to go out of its way to
| exclude legitimate participation, we must withdraw from the presumption that
| the standard can be legitimate, even if the end product does not overly
| exclude the possibility of an open source implementation. This is what I have
| leared by reading the Groklaw report on the BRM
`----
http://opensource.org/node/269
Good to have GPLv3 after all. Microsoft also deceived/lied about patents in
OOXML. Busted. Wasn't /that/ predictable?
Related:
Developer’s Beware: OOXML – IPR: Minding the Gaps and Why They Matter
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft has a patent promise, the Open Specification Promise (OSP) and a
| Covenant Not to Sue, relating to OOXML. If you want to implement OOXML with
| confidence that you are not infringing on any intellectual property rights
| (IPR), these coverages are not adequate. They have gaps.
`----
http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/IssueBriefIPR.pdf
IP Issues with OOXML (DIS 29500)
,----[ Quote ]
| Out of all the free and open source licences which are available, there are
| two which are disproportionately chosen by FOSS developers when licensing
| their software. Those two are the GPL and the LGPL. Of these, the GPL is
| disproportionately favoured over the LGPL.* If there are issues with GPL
| implementations then there are IP issues with OOXML. Any assurance that
| excludes implementation under these licences is just cause for the FOSS
| community to voice concern.
|
| [...]
|
| If there are issues with GPL implementations then there are IP issues with
| OOXML. Microsoft implicitly concedes there are issues with GPL
| implementations.
`----
http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/ip-issues-with-ooxml-dis-29500/
By Metes and Bounds
,----[ Quote ]
| But you might say, "Please Rob, you can't be serious. Who would try to get a
| patent on laying out a footnote? That just doesn't happen in the real world."
|
| But consider for Microsoft's patent application "Method and computer readable
| medium for laying out footnotes" (US20060156225A1). I'm not saying that
| application matches the above feature in the standard, but if it did, is
| there anyone who will argue that the Open Specification Promise would not
| apply in this case?
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/02/by-metes-and-bounds.html
Defensive Patents, Other Fairy Tales
,----[ Quote ]
| "Defensive patents" make as much sense as leaving a loaded gun around the
| house. Like a home robbery, it is more likely it will be used against the
| home owner then the intruder.
`----
http://krow.livejournal.com/578868.html
Microsoft patents by Brian Jones
,----[ Quote ]
| For fun we just did a quick search of published US patent applications
| with "Brian Jones" as an author, and "Microsoft" as the assignee.
|
| [...]
|
| Some of these, like the packing ones, seem to apply directly to OOXML. What
| isn't clear to us is why Microsoft would pursue patent protection for patents
| rights that their are promising that they won't assert over users of OOXML.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35323/microsoft-patents-by-brian-jones
Wishful Spinning
,----[ Quote ]
| OOXML gets adopted. More and more projects are started. Let's see which of
| these would survive without funding. Meanwhile a spin factory sends out
| success stories that most bloggers find worthless to discuss. It is possible
| to get the Krauts on board that are supposed to review OOXML but would OOXML
| survive a review by the crowds?
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35292/wishful-spinning
Digging in the Comments: Patents
,----[ Quote ]
| Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties
| that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the
| Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical
| and editorial issues would get resolved.
|
| [...]
|
| When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it,
| the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization
| process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the
| software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML
| infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license
| it.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31491/digging-in-the-comments:patents
Patent threat looms large over OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| "If OOXML goes through as an ISO standard, the IT industry, government and
| business will encumbered with a 6000-page specification peppered with
| potential patent liabilities" said NZOSS President Don Christie.
|
| "Patent threats have already been used to spread doubt amongst organisations
| keen to take advantage of the benefits of open source. No one knows whether
| such claims have any merit, but it is calculated to deter the development and
| use of open and alternative toolsets."
`----
http://nzoss.org.nz/node/179
Cyberlaw OOXML Seminar 14 December
,----[ Quote ]
| However, this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that
| such a large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims?
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The pedigree of the specification is certainly no reason for hope, Microsoft
| has been the target of third party patent claims for some time now including
| some high profile losses in patent suits. The fact that the specification has
| been developed behind closed doors and on a fast track means that there has
| been no adequate opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of third party patent
| claims against the specifications. The sheer size of the document suggests
| there will be at least a couple hiding in there somewhere.
`----
http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/
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
Interoperability the ELIZA way
,----[ Quote ]
| * So, now I have an Ecma standard, but ISO doesn't like it
| > Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
| *The open source zealots don't respect our standards
| > I'm not sure I understand you fully.
| * They are thieving communists who don't respect intellectual property
| > What do you think?
| * I think we should outlaw open source
| > Do you really think so?
| * Yes, otherwise there will be no more innovation
| > Why no?
| * Because without profit there is no incentive to innovate
| > Why no?
| * Without profit, no one would work
| > Why no?
| * What are you, some sort of communist?
| > Would you prefer if I were not some sort of communist?
| * Yes, better dead than red
| > I understand.
| * OK. So we need an ISO so we can continue innovation
| > Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
| * An ISO allows us to sell the same old MS Office we always had with our
| monopolist's profit margin. That is how we ensure innovation.
| > What do you think?
| * I have a monopoly.
| > You have a monopoly?
| * Yes, otherwise we would not be able to claim innovation by having an ISO
| format that merely mimics a 10-year old legacy format.
| > I see.
|
| [...]
|
| So, if anyone shows you interoperability, ask yourself whether both sides of
| the interaction actually fully understand the data that is being exchanged.
| If not, this is not really full interoperability. It is just an illusion.
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/01/interoperability-eliza-way.html
|
|
