Slashdot Mirror
When Should File Formats Be Placed in the Public Domain?
wccwcc writes "A lot has been said about file formats and standards creating network effects and huge profits. That said, is there a time when file formats should enter the public domain, or is it ok for companies to sit on them forever. These are some ideas on when and how file formats should enter the public domain, just like trademarks do when they become "generic"."
When the company that created them no longer exists. At the moment, I'm trying to convert about 20 gigs of obsolete files to a modern format. Apparently no one knows anything about the old format, but for some reason we are paying a company for "support", and they aren't at all interested in helping me with the conversion. Yeah, I can't say that I blame them, but if I do it myself could I be violating the law (U.S.)? Being forced to reverse engineer something is bad enough, having the lawyers tell you it might be illegal or a DMCA violation or something is enough to make you want to pull your hair out. Maybe we don't have the best lawyers in the world, but unless you work for a tech company how up to speed are YOUR lawyers on this? Especially with Hollings cranking out new bills... So, in my opinion, hell yes there should be an experation date! There is no logical reason why trying to convert a 25 year old format when no one else seems to know how should present a legal issue.
The question is not when a proprietary file format should be made public domain. The question we should be asking is whether our tax dollars should be spent on software that produces proprietary format files.
I think that the U.S. government should phase out all proprietary format software purchasing, forcing vendors to make the file formats open standards if they want to do business with the U.S. government.
While I am not opposed to government legislating business behavior, I would prefer that the free market be allowed to work so long as the consumer will not suffer for it.
I can agree with the idea so far as file formats go, but codecs are another question entirely.
Car tyres are ubiquitous, but the tread patterns designed by the various manufacturers are still patented. The tread doesn't define how the tyre works, it just makes it work better -- similarly, Sorenson isn't a file format, it is a way of making the data that fits within a file format smaller.
I am from a small, grease-loving country in the north called Ca-na-da.
As a semi-pro graphics artist, I really hate proprietary stock image formats. I can understand their desire to curb rampant copying, but I also dislike the lack of interoperability.
One example is the SNX format used by the Second Nature company for their screen saver images. I've purchased the discs, I would like to use them on Linux, not the native Windows.
A worse example is the Hemera HPI format used for their stock "photo objects." These are 8 CD sets of about 50,000 images in a proprietary 24bpp + alpha channel format. Something which TIFF or PNG formats handle very well. Every time I want to use an image, I have to load up Windows, use their proprietary image search and export tool.
It's my estimation that in the long run, inconvenience added through proprietary "protections" will cost these royalty-free image companies far more sales than the illicit warez-ing of their content. And what happens when those stock companies are not around to support their proprietary converters? One Windows update and users are cut off from the image libraries which should be simple to access.
[
Is it via a plugin in your illustration software that allows embedding only?
Or, does it convert from their format into something more usable?
If it does the latter, seems the first thing I'd do is use a standard Windows macro program to automate the process of extracting images, and let it run overnight.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
There may be many patents involved with products that also generate or use proprietary file formats but the patent itself can not protect the secrecy required.
And, why is that?
Patents and trade secrets are diametrically opposed to each other. You simply can not have a trade secret and a patent cover the same idea or concept.
The reason is that patents must fully disclose how to make the "object" and allow anyone following the patent information to do so. That is a fundamental requirement of a valid patent.
A trade secret on the other hand only works because that kind of information is keep from everyone else. So, the two concepts are fundamentally opposed.
That does not mean that software covered by a patent can not use proprietary and hidden formats. Rather it simply means that the file format is not covered by the patent.
It is certainly possible for a software program to be covered in part by a patent, covered in part by copyright and covered in part by a trade secret (non disclosed file formats). Copyrights might disclose enough information to "out" a file format but the entire source code does not to be part of the copyright application. Parts of it can easily be and usually are redacted to hide key parts. No doubt the code that actually generates the formats would be conveniently redacted out.
The real question is whether anyone should buy software that uses proprietary or non disclosed file formats. Clearly SUN (StarOffice) and OpenOffice.Org think it is a real advantage to not use a proprietary file format (XML). Microsoft thinks a proprietary one ties customers to their own product lines and thinks it is a great idea. But, it is only a great idea for the vendor not the customer. The customer would always be better off if a known format is being used and the known format is not proprietary. After all, the data belongs to the customer not the vendor of the code. And, the vendor should not taking any step which reduces the customers legitimate use of their own data. (Even if it strengthens the monopoly.)
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
BoyPlankton replies: I really believe that if you are going to impose a restriction like this against MS then you should impose it industry-wide. Otherwise, future virtual monopolies will use file formats to compete unfairly.
It's been clearly demonstrated that Microsoft can and does use its monopoly power abusively. No, it's not illegal to be a monopoly. But yes, it is illegal to abuse your position as a monopoly. That's what the Sherman Anti-Trust act is all about.
You can't use some prior-restraint against a company that might become a monopoly because it would be "unfair" to a convicted abusive monopolist. At best that's being an apologist for abusive monopolies.
At the very least Microsoft should be forced to open their file formats and APIs, fully documented, in the interest of interoperability with other platforms. It has been shown time and time again that they will otherwise abuse their position as a monopoly to crush other companies and projects (Dr. DOS, PC-DOS, Netscape, Samba). This clearly should be part of the remedy phase of the trial. Let's remember - they've already been convicted. Now we're looking at remedies that are supposed to preclude them from engaging in such behaviour in the future. Clearly, a promise to do so is woefully inadequate.
IMHO, All Intellectual Property, 25 years after the death of the creator/IP holder or 75 years after first publication in any event. Otherwise Disney, AOL-Time-Warner, and a handful of other companies will own our culture. The Constitution makes a very specific provision for copyright expiration, the purpose of copyrights, and the purpose of expiring them for the benefit of the public.
It's your data, and you are dependent on some company staying in business and continuing to support their format?
And you think crusty old COBOL programs are bad.
That's actually the reason that big business is getting more and more interested in Open Source. Any data stored in a proprietary format is a ticking time bomb. Expect Star Office to take off and become dominant. If Sun can't or won't do whatever with Star Office, there's always Open Office which WILL be file compatible and documented, source if nothing else. I like cheap insurance on critical resources.
Right more or less - its a poor way to address the issue.
I would suggest as an alternative a Users Union - which would refuse to embrace or use file formats which are not Public Domain.
The JPEG Joint Photographers Group is a successful example. I think it would be in the people's interest for government to have an outstanding policy that they should use and convert to public formats if at all possible.
One possible route would be to leverage the freedom of information act by requesting documents in "public" formats. It may be a stretch, but i think the argument could be made under the FIA that data must be a. made available in the format best suited to the data and b. the only good format is an open format.
Anyway - courts are the fastest way to change things.
AIK
I don't want data created at taxypayer expense to be stored in your proprietary format.
What happens when you are no longer there to support the program and adapt it to new hardware and operating systems?
What happens if, in ten years, you decide that you'd rather license your software for $10,000 per year rather than $50? The government will either have to pay it or lose access to the data that the taxpayers paid for the creation of.
I think that you should be able to store data in any format that you choose, but I don't think that the government should license your software unless it stores data in an open format that encourages competition and interoperability.