OOXML: Standards for accepting standards
,----[ Quote ]
| A toxic leech
|
| OOXML is controversial for a number of reasons. Critics argue that OOXML is
| not so much a specification as a description of Microsoft's existing
| proprietary data formats, complete with the replication of historic bugs, the
| most notorious being the treatment of 1900 as a leap year. The specification
| was derived internally to describe Microsoft's current data formats, and has
| not benefitted from the usual wide-ranging debate and participation from
| competing interests, hammering out their differences to find the points they
| have in common, that accompany the conventional definition of a standard.
|
| A standard is intended to facilitate multiple implementations of a protocol
| or data format, not to give validation to the one existing implementation of
| that format. There have also been complaints that, despite the fact that over
| 3500 comments were raised against the original specification, delegates
| weren't able to suggest amendments that contradicted Microsoft's current
| implementation.
|
| [...]
|
| In truth, the opposition has come from all quarters, and has been most vocal
| among those interested in open standards, which includes everybody from
| governments through to representatives of the free and open source software
| movement, and also includes many parties with an interest in maintaining open
| access and network neutrality for civil or commercial reasons, including the
| likes of IBM, Google and Oracle.
`----
http://www.itpro.co.uk/information-management/features/176172/ooxml-standards-for-accepting-standards/page1.html
http://tinyurl.com/35fsjh
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
|
|
