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"."
In direct opposition to my mostly pro-Microsoft stances, I am of the opinion that widely used formats, no matter what the licensing restrictions, ought to be forcibly placed into the public domain by law. This includes various compression schemes such as Sorenson used in QuickTime.
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.
Companies with virtual monopolies, like Microsoft, should be required to place their file formats in the public domain (make them public and free). Otherwise, monopolies can use file formats to compete unfairly.
One problem with putting the Microsoft Word file formats in the public domain is that the "file formats" include all of MS Word's quirkiness and bugs that affect the way documents are stored. These would have to be carefully documented, also.
A file encoding scheme is protectable by patent. This makes file formats proprietary for as long as their patents are effective. To me this seems fair. If I create a file format and want it to be adopted as a standard, I will make it public domain or else adopt a liberal licensing scheme. On the other hand if I stand to make money from this file format, then I have to guard it much more closely - but then risk missing out on industry adoption. I don't see anything wrong with this system.
If people use an open source format and refuse to accept documents in a proprietary fomat then the point is mute. Instead of bitching about company xyz (or MS), start using programs that utilize open formats right now.
I guess it takes balls, and a LACK of apathy to start demanding that documents sent to you aren't in foo.fooo format. Balls are in short supply in the "corporate" world where apathy reigns supreme at the moment.
BTW, if you e-mail me, you e-mail will bounce if it's not a text or html message. It's a start for me. How about you?
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I generally dislike proprietary file formats. All file formats should be standardized. Currently there are many companies (MS, Adobe, etc.) who make money because their file format is the standard and they are the only ones who make software that can deal with that file format. If all file formats were standardized then there would be no problems of not being able to read someone elses file. And you would be able to choose from a variety of applications for dealing with those files. So while your friend may like the full featured word processor of doom, and you like the very lite textpad, if their is a universal standard for word processing documents you can read his file and he can read it after you edit it. In the end the companies that make the best software will win, not the companies that own the file formats.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
It seems that a large part of the original article attempts to make comparisons between medicines and document file formats. The first thought that comes to my mind is that it's not a valid comparison at all - simply because medicines are subject to government regulation and file formats aren't.
Personally, I believe the complaints about filetypes remaining proprietary long after the original developers have a use for them is just one more illustration of a larger issue. Copyrights on computer software are being granted for excessively long periods of time. Unlike "traditional" works (such as a fiction novel), a piece of software isn't likely to be marketable for more than a few years. If there really is any difference between "digital media" and "traditional media" that requires updated laws, this is it.
I think the current laws are quite workable to cover patents, copyrights, and trademarks for computer software/hardware - with this one exception. There's really no compelling reason to grant a software author (or hardware designer) exclusive rights to their work beyond the window of "financial opportunity" they can enjoy from it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not entirely sure how legally a file format can be public after a (relatively) short period of time such as 25 years. Most software methods and formats are copyrighted, not patented. They last a billion years, and yes, even after the company is dead. Few companies patent software for reasons I'm sure we've read on /. a billion times over. So, yeah, it sucks that file formats are lining the pockets of companies for a long time, but the alternative is to make ludicrous exceptions to copyright law. After file format protection goes, it's only a matter of time before the next big thing loses its protection as well...
Maybe file formats should be handled the same way [as patented pharmaceuticals]?
Actually, they are. Apple/Sorenson's video codec (used in .mov) is patented. Fraunhofer's MP3 audio codec (used in .mp3) is patented. Unisys's LZW still-image codec (used in .gif) is patented. Iterated Systems's fractal-transform still-image codec is patented.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I respectfully beg to disagree.
The very idea of "forcibly placing" ones work into the "public domain by law" is quite distasteful.
If you spent 10 years developing a superior compression routine because you were sure it would revolutionize the graphics industry, wouldn't you expect to have some ability to control the sale of your work afterwards? I sure as hell would. I didn't invest 10 years of my life on a project just to have governmnet rip it away from me and say "Sorry pal, we're forcing that into the public domain."
On the other hand, as I already posted here - I do think the copyright protection on digital works should expire after a limited time period. (Let's say we agree that 5 years is more than adequate?) This is all the time a developer should ever need as a "window" to make all the money he or she can from their work. After that, the balance shifts.... It causes more problems than it solves to let the developer retain rights to the old code. By now, he/she has surely developed something newer/fresher, because it's no longer possible to make a profit from the 5 year old software.
[analogy between car tyres and video codecs]
You can drive down the street with any decent set of tyres; in general (excepting extreme road conditions), you don't have to match your tyres to the road. On the other hand, you can't watch a particular file with just any codec; it has to be able to understand the particular format of compressed data.
Sorenson isn't a file format
ASCII isn't a file format either, but both Sorenson Video and ASCII (as encodings) share the characteristics of a file format that apply to the present discussion.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
[
having the lawyers tell you it might be illegal or a DMCA violation
The DMCA's circumvention ban makes an explicit exemption regarding reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability (17 USC 1201(f)).
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.
If we were to allow (well-thought-out) software patents, this wouldn't be a problem, as any 20-year-old invention (in the USA, patents last up to filing date + 20 years) would be described in great detail.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Exactly! Every democratic government has a duty to use open file formats.
If you were to tell this guy "hard luck", then this is just as unjust as the guy who is profiting from this fellow's poor judgement.
In early versions of PKZIP for DOS, there was a file named "DEDICATE.DOC" (actually a plain text file, not a Word document; MS Word hadn't usurped that extension in those days). The contents of this file for the version 1.1 release follows:
Dedication
----------
The file format of the files created by these programs, which file format
is original with the first release of this software, is hereby dedicated to
the public domain. Further, the filename extension of ".ZIP", first used in
connection with data compression software on the first release of this
software, is also hereby dedicated to the public domain, with the fervent
and sincere hope that it will not be attempted to be appropriated by anyone
else for their exclusive use, but rather that it will be used to refer to
data compression and librarying software in general, of a class or type
which creates files having a format generally compatible with this
software.
Of course, the fact that the file format (and application note) for this program was made freely available and usable to all, allowed numerous other companies to make their own ZIP compatible programs, many of them financially more successful than PKZIP. But that's another story...
- Mike
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
How anodyne.
(Warning, that was a geeky joke for etymologists).
graspee
Before you get on your libertarian high horse, stop pretending that there are no other government interventions at work here. When you get all riled up that the government is "willing to use force, or hire someone else to use force, against someone whose only relevant action has been" to reverse-engineer a popular file format, or to duplicate a copyrighted work, then you can start beating the drum about forcing file formats open.
And anyway, if the formats weren't copyrightable, the companies would still have the option of keeping them a trade secret. Force is not necessarily implied anywhere here, unlike in the DMCA, which provides no alternatives for the users---if you're blind and want to listen to an eBook, say, tough noogies.
But then again, you seem to be shilling for the corporations instead of the users.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Coca-Cola is a good example of a proprietary "format." Their recipe for Coke is a company secret. They don't have it Registered because that would require they register the formula (where everyone would be able to see it). So Coke has simply relied on their ability to keep the formula secret.
The implications of requiring a company to release the specifications of their file format, would be much further reaching. Imagine Pepsi lobbying for Coca-Cola to open up their formula, because it's been proprietary for however-many years.
We tend to view the technology industry in a vaccum. But in fact, many discussions like this have already been resolved in the "real world."
The market needs to drive these things. If corporations feel safe using a proprietary format, let them use it. Then let them get bit on the ass for it several years later when they can't read their historical documents with the latest version of their proprietary software. Eventually, the market will demand open formats. In fact, there seems to be evidence (no, I can't cite, you'll just have to trust me or do your own research) that this is already happening.
Seems to me the point of XML is to provide an interface for metadata- which is all a file format is, anyway- which is more readily usable. XML also includes the capability to store that "pseudo proprietary data" you mention as well.
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
I don't believe that a file structure, protocol, or grammar should be copyrightable or patentable. Such things are (in my opinion) ideas or concepts, rather than implementations. A particular header file, piece of documentation, or interpreter describing or processing such a structure is and should be covered by copyright; but I feel that the underlying data structures should not be, any more than a mathematical formula or physical law.
Should companies be forced to publish their internal data structures and protocols? In general, no -- we already have too many laws to control the behavior of people and organizations. But for external/shared data, I feel there is a good fair-use argument for requiring documentation: If you export or import the data, you [should] have an obligation to describe the relevant public syntax and external semantics. The omission of such documentation would be considered a product failure, and would leave the vendor open to warranty issues, by failing to deliver a product that performs as advertised. "No documentation? Give me my money back."
Bottom line: I think it should be impossible for a vendor to obtain IP protection over a data structure or similar metadata; I think that a vendor should be expected (but not compelled except by market forces) to document external interfaces; and I think that a vendor should only be able to cling to a proprietary format as a trade secret, i.e. it should not be possible to prevent reverse engineering.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
Monopolies imply ubiquity.
Ubiquity may imply generic-ness as a 'de-facto public standard'.
If that's the case, MS Office may well already be a generic public standard and the People may be well within their rights to revoke its special protection as a patented, trademarked, or copyrighted entity.
For that matter, this could apply to ANY kind of deliberate technological obfuscation from the CD and DVD 'red book' up through and including all of the MS office file formats and the Win32 API's.
If this were the case, it would provide the safety valve that we need to prevent the growth of dangerous technological institutions without bounds - feel free to make yourself popular, but make yourself UNFAIRLY popular and the People will take back their rights of fair use.
"These are some ideas on when and how file formats should enter the public domain, just like trademarks do when they become "generic"."
They should never leave the public domain. The notion that file formats should be patentable is ludicrous.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Companies should be bound by law to maintain DTDs and XML converters for their proprietary formats.
Every time they change format, they MUST provide a converter. That would take care of the content loss every damn time M$ changes its fuckin' formats.
The last thing a company does before filing for Chapter 11 is provide the converter WITH their filing.
I've had to carry some files through "upgrade" after "upgrade."
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I suppose in the current corrupt state of patents, someone might be able to get a patent on a particular way of storing data. Audio/Video codecs might have more justification. Copyright is not available -- the datafile is a mixture of works of the format creators and the data providers.
As a simple matter of prudence, just say NO! Why trust your important data to some proprietary format you cannot unlock if the company goes belly up or otherwise becomes unwilling to provide? Isn't the suffering of MS-Word users enough warning?
And consequences that outweigh the initial folly cannot be called just.
Others have already covered the difference between a format and a codec, so I don't need to go into it here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Basically, the parent post is pointing out that this clause is highly contingent on the first part of the clause "to promote the progress of science and useful arts...." In other words, this isn't a right like Freedom of Speech, which is granted even without progress for anything or anyone, (and is only limited in certain cases where there is a direct threat to society, and even then, it isn't limited easily).
Intellectual property however, is not such a right and is (should be) only granted for the purpose of promoting progress in the arts and sciences. While it's hard to determine exactly which piece of art leads to progress, and therefore we should not grant copyright based on the merit of a work, we *should* grant copyright for a certain amount of time, as incentive, and no more time than necessary. 70 years past the death of the author is extremely excessive. Even 70 years alone is excessive.
To put it into perspective, back then it was only 14 years, and copyright should diminish with technology, not increase, since technology decreases the amount of time to bring something to market and for people to hear about it.
Actually, it's been shown that medical research is always just as effective, if not more effective, when it is funded by public dollars and not corporate sponsors. Therefore, we should fund medical research with public dollars, and end medical patents, since we end up paying 8 times what we would have if we developed it with public research.
The FORCE aspect is right, but you fail to be specific about what actions is being compelled. These details are the heart of the argument and should not be glossed over.
And the best way the government can accomplish this is not by passing a law -- I am strongly against the government taking something that a company feels is proprietary and simply making it public. But, it could be accomplished simply by stating that the government itself will only use documented formats for data, which will require all major software vendors to document theirs.
AND just to clarify, this is not saying that all formats should be standardized or designed by committee or only changed with public approval...companies can make whatever format they want and change it whenever they want, as long as they document it.
So for this I came up with the idea of the Open Data Format Initiative...which I have done nothing with yet, but might one of these years. I even bounced the idea off a few politicians!
- adam
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.
The very idea of "forcibly placing" ones work into the "public domain by law" is quite distasteful.
Um, that's exactly what a patent is, and does. You document your method in detail for all to see, and in exchange, you can decide who uses the method for a limited amount of time. After the patent expires, potentially everyone benefits from your documentation freely.
[
Just curious: have you ever done jury duty before?
It think, the industry is becoming more and more aware of the dangers of proprietary file formats.
Beeing an mechanical engineer myself, I have the problem every single day when designing in CAD. Ever tried to convert a model from Pro/Engineer to CATIA? Or EMS to IDEAS? Or...
Sure, after only some decades, they came up with exchange formats like the teethless IGES which everybody can interpret it's own way. IGES in Pro/E flavor (i.e. created by Pro/E in the way they thought is right) cannot be read by CATIA and IGES in CATIA flavor cannot be read by Pro/E. (Forget the ridiculus AutoDesk products, nobody want to design in them anyway, so no reason for data exchange...)
In recent years, the industry has become aware of the huge amount of time and money they spend on dealing with proprietary file formats and they have pushed for better standardized formats like STEP and VDA-FS. In fact, they have not only pushed, but done the job themselves...
One problem though: IGES, STEP and VDA-FS are still not public domain, they are owned by certain groups and will cost money as soon as it is feasible. So, the latest trend is XML - and this time, it's gonna be right!
BTW: One very exiting project is using XML for exchanging dynamic models between simulation programs, like this approach at my own university in Linköping, Sweden.
Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
Now aspirin is a special case. The *patent* on aspirin was held by Bayer (a German company) and expired around the beginning of World War I. However Bayer still held the *trademark* on the name aspirin. But the US government stripped it from Bayer as part of the treaty ending the war. This is a quote from a longer article (about Cipro, also owned by Bayer and under patent suspension threat from the US gov):
The Alien Property Custodian, a wartime office charged with seizing enemy-owned assets on U.S. territory, was entitled to confiscate all German property -- intellectual and physical -- and that included the Bayer and Aspirin names. On Dec. 12, 1918, when the war had ended, all of Bayer's assets, including the names, were auctioned off to an American company, Sterling Drug.
In the 1920s, American courts dealt a huge blow to Sterling when it allowed Aspirin to be used as a generic term at the retail level. Other companies began selling the compound under that name, capitalizing on Bayer's huge advertising campaign initiated before the Great War. In Germany, Canada and many other countries, Aspirin is still a trademark (hence the capital A) and if you ask a pharmacist for aspirin, you will get Bayer Aspirin.
ANYWAY having said all that I think it is silly to say that because file formats are used a lot, they may become generic. A lot of people drink Coke, and nobody is saying its formula is about to become generic.
- adam
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
But to be honest, the IT bods should know better than to keep their companies crown jewels locked in a safe that they will only be able to open for a certain amount of time.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
DWG is the file format used to store AutoCAD drawings. AutoCAD, arguably, is the most popular piece of drafting software for the PC. How does AutoCAD maintain it's sales of ever more complicated releases?
A proprietary file format. Since many architectural firms have large databases of AutoCAD drawings they need to use tools that will read their previous work. Sure, DWG has been reverse-engineered a couple times by other parties, but always with mixed results.
Thus firms are a stuck buying AutoCAD to access and modify their drawings.
There have been stabs at cross-application/platform drawing formats (DXF) but they are quite limited compared to DWG.
Actually, the situation reminds me a lot of MS-Word's DOC format.
You're absolutely right.
However, since it is clearly not beneficial to society to encourage these sorts of works to remain secrets, the government should afford the creators not a single atom of legal protection. If someone should reverse engineer the format and make it public, the original creator should be totally out of luck.
As an enticement to do what we want -- to have that work be in the public domain -- we should extend some protections. This is in fact the way that patents and copyrights work.
Although the govt. certainly can force works into the public domain, they just have to fairly compensate the author. That's how eminent domain operates; in an emergency that is somewhat difficult to imagine with regards to file formats, they can also force the author to open them, e.g. in order to save lives or property. It's the same thinking that permits houses to be destroyed in order to contain fires in cities if it's really felt necessary.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I didn't invest 10 years of my life on a project just to have governmnet rip it away from me and say "Sorry pal, we're forcing that into the public domain."
The question, though, is whether your right to profit outweighs society's interest in being able to exchange data without paying outrageous prices for software, the most obvious example being Word doc files. The proprietary file format is what keeps people locked into Word, and it costs our government, businesses, schools and individuals billions of dollars annually. All that for the profit of one company.
You might spend 10 years creating a file format, but the bottom line is that to make money off of it, it has to be used with some program that customers use to store, create or manipulate data that they own - they should not be restricted in ways that they can access that data, which is the upshot of a proprietary file format. I agree that people should have the right to profit from their inventions, but not in a situation that puts the majority of society at a severe disadvantage.
Also - many people would argue that putting file formats in the public domain would have a "chilling effect" on the development of new file formats. I heartily disagree with that. We've already seen a number of file formats developed for Open Source / Free Software programs, or developed by consortiums where many universities and businesses sponsor the development of standards for their mutual interest. This is far preferable to the development of formats by companies that then try to monopolize a market and charge outrageous prices for their software. Yes, it might slow down development, but is that a bad thing? I think not. The cost of upgrading software to keep up with software upgrades that are driven by profit motives instead of actual technological necessity is draining the budgets of schools, businesses and individuals who have to keep up with this endless cycle. Something that would slow this cycle would be of enormous benefit to the vast majority of society - it would be harmful only to those companies like Microsoft that depend on perpetual upgrades for revenue. I can't say I'd weep for them.
This discussion is particularly timely now that Microsoft is trying to pioneer subscription software. If you can't buy the program outright, and a company can shut off your access to data you own at any time, the format should be open to allow people access to their data through other means. I can easily see a scenario with Microsoft holding businesses hostage and raising their subscription prices every six months.
Even 5 years is too long to wait to be able to get at your own data.
The "exclusivity" caused by copyright and applied to the actual product is sufficient to give the format creator sufficient advantage already -- what patents and trade secrets on formats (as opposed to code being copyrighted) do is giving an additional protection against competitors or even collaboration that was never the intention of copyright or even patent laws.
It's a side effect that benefits copyright owners, however this effect is accidental, unintentional (where were no file formats when law was written), and counterproductive, so the right way to remove this unnecessary additional protection is to strip it from all means that this protection can be achieved through. If it will be illegal to use patent protection against interoperable software products, or prosecute against trade secret disclosure made for interoperability purpose, copyright and patents will be still there, but interoperability will get a special protection against patents and trade secrets. It will be still illegal to copy someone's else code into a product without a permission, but, say, an employee disclosing a format that company is unwilling to publish will not be afraid of prosecution because trade secret won't even exist for that kind of information.
In fact most of companies will benefit from this "blanket" exemption of patents and trade secrets protection for interoperability purpose, they protect those things because other have them, but they also are stuck with unreasonable licenses that stem from this protection, so most of them will better off if this protection will be lifted. Ones that won't, are most likely not benefitting anyone else anyway, and it's not the copyright and patent law's purpose to encourage parasitic behavior.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Eventually, the market will demand open formats. In fact, there seems to be evidence (no, I can't cite, you'll just have to trust me or do your own research) that this is already happening.
Bullshit. When the company has a monopoly the market has no choice. The one thing most "free market" advocates fail to grasp is that the marked forces cease to work once monopoly is established. Proprietary file formats amount to an unlimited monopoly. At least with copyrights and patents the monopoly is limited in duration.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
People miss the point on intellectual output. By its very nature, it is already and automatically copiable and public. The state, through copyright law or patent law, agrees to offer artificial protections, so as to induce creators to create. This is a fiction we all agree to for social purposes.
A government can "force" a file format -- or a Disney movie, for that matter -- into the "public dmain" by simply not enforcing the copyright. Copyright is not a passive thing intrinsic to a creative work. It is an active, volitional thing that requires the complicity of the courts (and by extension the rest of the government) to be effective.
Look at what goes on in all the "pirate" nations (such as, say, the US in 1890).
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
It's already been established that a company can't own a set of op codes for a cpu. File formats should certainly have the same protection, the data they contain almost always does not belong to the company that created the format; such a company should not be able to hold the data prisoner because only they can access the format.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Yeah, but no one forces you to file for patents. You could keep your invention a trade secret instead (like Sorenson does).
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.
"I am not willing to use force, or hire someone else to use force, against someone whose only relevant action has been the creation of a popular format."
You've got it exactly backwards. It is the owners of file format patents who are using force to compell the rest of us to pay them for the use of the format. We are proposing the _cessation_ of the use of force.
"The solution to this problem isn't to violate the property rights of the owner of the format but to simply refuse to use it."
A patent is not a property right. It is a temporary monopoly granted (and enforced) by the governement, supposedly for the benefit of society.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Yes, but a patent gives you exclusive rights for a period of time to allow you (among other things) to recoup the cost of development. If I lose any chance to reap the benefits of my labor, then why should I bother?
I think there are two issues here. One is making the format descriptions publicly available. Another is forbidding other people from writing programs that are able to read and/or write those formats.
If a format is still evolving, it's understandable that the people who created it don't want to deal with files written by other programs, that might do things that are "in spec" but that their "official" program still doesn't cope with very well (ex., images that are too large, etc.).
So they don't make the file format publicly available. But chances are, some people will be able to understand it even without any documentation. And in most situations they'll be able to read and write those files without using any of the original code, so copyrighting the code isn't enough. To make sure they don't have to deal with files generated by "unofficial" 3rd party software, the only solution is to copyright the format itself.
But (except for very specific cases, involving encryption) I don't see what harm comes to the original authors from people making programs that are able to read it. If something goes wrong with one of these programs (because the authors changed the format, for example), it's not their problem.
RMN
~~~
Not true at this point. There are many alternative formats to Word, but you cannot exchange data with a company that uses Word reliably. Since Word has a virtual monopoly the only alternatives are for a huge sea change where a majority of companies, government offices and individuals who use Word to switch to a different format and/or abandon Word or to be stuck with Word. The same is true of Excel and a number of other programs.
Word comes with various data export formats, and you or anybody else can convert all of your Word files to plain text, HTML, or several other data formats *right now*.
I suppose this may be true if you're talking about text information only. You cannot reliably export tables, formatting and other information. Since I consider formatting part of my data, your argument fails. In fact, you really can't reliably export to any of these formats if your document is very complicated. Again, as I mentioned earlier, even this is moot if Microsoft successfully switches to a subscription model where Word won't even start up if you're not currently subscribing.
Even if you could reliably convert all your information to another format, if 80% of the market is using a proprietary format that you cannot access without Word, you're pretty much up shit creek if you don't use Word, aren't you? If you're a supplier that wants to sell to Chrysler, and they want your pricing in Excel format - guess what? You've got to buck up for Excel. If a government office standardizes on a proprietary format, every supplier has to have that program. For my home use, I'm not locked in to Word or any proprietary program at all - until I want to write a book for a company like Osborne/McGraw-Hill that requires Word docs, or submit a resume to recruiters that are requiring Word docs. The features in Word aren't what keep people locked in to it - it's the file formats. I haven't met many people who actually like Word or any of the Office programs, they use them because the file formats are dominant and because Microsoft obfuscates the formats so much that it's virtually impossible for any other company to completely decipher the format so their program can reliably import and export the program.
If this was done by law or executive order or whatever is less important, although as you say the method might influence how permanent it is. But I think if the government even just said that government procurement people should favor documented data formats, Microsoft would have the Office spec available the next day (or the day after it got done complaining about the new rule).
- adam
It's possible for patents to cover certain algorithms required by a file format. GIF files, for example, use LZW encryption, which was patented by Sperry-Univac. But this patent really was not on the file format itself, which was trivial. Rather, it covered a process used to compress data. The specification for the file format just happened to require that the data be compressed via that process. (Had it allowed different compression methods, as does TIFF, the patent wouldn't have been an issue.) When the unknown CompuServe programmer who created the GIF format wrote the original specification, he probably would have chosen a different compression algorithm if he had realized that the patented algorithm would cause so many problems both for CompuServe and for its users. Alas, like many programmers, he was concerned with results, not with legal or business issues. By the time Sperry-Univac (which by then had become Unisys) became litigious and began to enforce the patent, the standard was ubiquitous. But, again, the problem here was caused not by the nature of the file format but by the algorithm used to prepare data for storage and transmission in that format.
The only situation I know of in which a company has attempted to patent the file format itself is when Coda Music Software patented certain aspects of the file formats used by its music software. No one knows whether these patents were very strong, because there was never a test case. Coda's software never dominated the market, and so competitors did not find a compelling need to support their file formats. The patent was never challenged, so we can only speculate as to its strength.
TO THE EDITOR:
With the Microsoft antitrust case so much in the news lately, and since Iowa is one of the nine states opting out of the DOJ settlement, I find it curious that all this media attention has missed one simple point: the government could end Microsoft's monopoly tommorow, with the stroke of a pen.
Governor Vilsack could simply sign an executive order that, henceforth all digital communication with the Sate of Iowa must be transmitted and stored in "open" (publicy documented, royalty free) file formats. Since Microsoft's popular Office file formats (.DOC, .XLS, .PPT) are propretary, they would be unacceptable under the new rule. Any email sent to any government agency with a DOC or XLS file attachment would be automatically returned, with a request to re-send the content in an open file format.
The downstream repercussions would be massive. It would eliminate the need for businesses and individuals to purchase Microsoft software, at least as far as State business is concerned, and would popularize the notion that "not everyone uses Microsoft." Within weeks, it would be common knowledge among computer users, that some people can't read DOC files, and you can easily get around this problem with Save-As.
The single biggest obstacle to Microsoft's competition is not its illegal business practices, but simple inertia -- everyone else uses Microsoft. And no business that hopes to stay in business would risk "turning off" a potential customer by requesting a different file format.
The State, however, can and should make that request. Transparency in government is a hallmark of modern democracy. When I am forced to purchase Microsoft products in order to view "public" documents, then the term "Microsoft Tax" is not just a metaphor, it's a disgrace.
--jrd
PS: Still no reply from Vilsack... :-/
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
First off, I think trying to make companies give up proprietary file formats is stupid, and a violation of free enterprise. Those "standards" are trade secrets, and in my opinion, forcing companies to give away trade secrets of any sort is a horrible precedent.
Second, what makes you think these companies even have a genuine specification of the format? They may have laid it out, but chances are that a few parts of the spec were tweaked while debugging. While those alterations may (hopefully) be internally consistent, trying to code from the spec would be a huge waste of time. The only way to guarantee true interoperability would be to have a copy of the program's source code.
Finally, I've heard a lot of talk about the files being "your data, you should own and control it, and you shouldn't be beholden to a software license". I think this is more of a problem with the intellectual property system today, where you can own a software package, but you can't really OWN it.
If you buy a piece of software and don't like their proprietary file format, reverse engineer it. If you're worried about the integrity of your data, export it.
That's a valid comment. In other words, we should find a better way of resolving the inequity of thew issue than a recourse to law. I wholly agree.
If this is true, then couldn't it be argued that [DeCSS] is a valid reverse engineering exercise for purposes of interoperability with the Linux operating system?
The difference in the DVD-file-format case is that DeCSS was first released as a Windows executable, useful for nothing but copying DVDs. The DeCSS developers should have finished the Linux kernel's UDF drivers before publicly releasing the DeCSS application.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Respect goes both ways. A file format should not deprive the owner of rights. Reverse engineering should be allowed. That's why the DMCA, which forbids reverse engineering of copyright protection, is a bad piece of legislation.
I posted something similar to shouldexist.org back then too. Just to share the thoughts.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The equation of the "use of law" == "force" is exactly the problem of you libertarians. If one has any acquaintance with the mafia or other criminal organizations, you will know that force can be used without resort of weapons. I'd rather deal against a government that wields guns but has laws, than a mafia boss that wields no guns, but is willing to do a anything to make a buck.
Because by the time you have a 90% market share and you still haven't recouped your costs you simply had a lousy bussiness plan, in that case patents aren't going to help....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Unfortunately recent versions of Office use a version of .RTF so tweaked that it is totally unparsable by older non-MS programs.
It also seems to cut both ways. An RTF file created in AppleWorks is unreadable in Office 97/98/2000/XP/X. Same with RTF files from WordPerfect.
Star Office 6/ OpenOffice 1 format is a great choice for a portable format. XML+Zip compression. If MS adopts it, however, they will embrace, then extend it to the breaking point. Just like they did with RTF.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Do what I've done. Install OpenOffice 1.0 on your corporate machine. Set it to save in Microsoft file formats by default (I know, but bear with me). Use it to create, read and write Microsoft Office files for a couple of months. Invite your coworkers to use it. See if they even notice that it's not Microsoft Office. Document everything you do with it.
When you have a big healthy list of Microsoft format files that you've touched with it, confront your IS department and demand to know why they are wasting money on Microsoft Office. Tell them that you've already removed it from your machine (that's a $300 saving to the company right there) with - demonstrably - no effect on your or anyone else's productivity. CC people in accounting or cost control. Invite them to try it, to inspect the files (using Microsoft Office, naturally) and to ask your coworkers what they think of it. Request a specific answer about why it can't be used across the enterprise, or at least trialled on a larger scale, in parallel with the existing Microsoft Office if need be. If they bitch that it's unsupported, suggest that they pay for StarOffice. If they whine that it's not guaranteed to create usable Microsoft binary format files, point out that it is creating them, and that Microsoft Office doesn't guarantee it either!
That's step 1, and it's a big step: get your company using Star/OpenOffice. Don't even bring up the issue of file formats until you've achieved this (I made that mistake). This might take years. It might never happen, because your IS guys are idiots or cowards working on the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" principle. But try for it.
Once you've got everyone using Star/OpenOffice then you can launch stage two. Switch to creating documents in the default XML format. Any Microsoft binary format documents that you touch as part of your normal work should be saved as XML. Make a nice big list of all the documents that you've changed, because (this is the good bit) nobody else should even notice. Then after a few months, back you go to IS with your list, and demand to know why everyone else is still using Microsoft binary formats as the default. At this point there simply no reason to stick with them. Point out that a default Star/OpenOffice document (zipped XML) is significantly smaller than the Microsoft binary equivelant, which should keep the beancounters happy. And that should they ever go back to a proprietary suite (gods forbid) that it's far easier to convert from XML to anything than from Microsoft binaries to anything.
It will be a long and painful process, but OpenOffice 1.0 and StarOffice 6.0 have made it possible to start it now. If you haven't tried these products, do so now. It's your first step into a larger universe. ;-)
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Amazon.com: Steal this idea, Michael Perelman
Yes, I linked to everybody's favorite patent abuser; I guess it because I like irony or something like that. I strongly recommend anyone even remotely interested in this stuff to read this book.
And once you get a foot caught in that treadmill, you're forever waving your data gioidbye unless you churn it ALL with every revision.
I know I've permanently lost lots of IP this way. Stuff I'lll have to reinvent because the article I wrote is in a file format that is no longuer supported.
That's why I stopped upgrading my OS & word processor on at least one machine. I can't afford to eat the cost of recreating the old stuff.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Seems to be slashdotted... Mirrors/cached copies anyone?
Try the library. You'd be surprised at what they have. Sometimes, you suggest a book to add to their collection, and they cooperate.
They are called tyres.
Have you actually used that spec and example code to create real, usable RTF?
I'm trying at the moment, and some things (page numbers in footers, particularly) are simply not documented in the RTF documentation or sample code.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Only if it's compulsory military service. If one voluntarily chooses to join the military, then one voluntarily accepts the strict regime that accompanies it, and the rights of no individual have been violated.
First war comes along and we are all fucked, nice idea there buddy.
::runs after eyes as they start to roll out of his head::
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
The solution is quite simple;
:P On the flip side, if you have ever thought to yourself that downloading and compiling source was a great way to do all software installations that is highly convenient, then you have been brainwashed.
Don't shoot anybody over file format rights;
and;
companies shouldn't be such dickheads about sucking every last dollar from their customers and should actually aim for customer SATISFACTION and not customer BRAINWASHING, which are two COMPLETELY different things.
Hint: If you have ever setup a DOS network and thought to yourself how nice and easy it was and how well suited for the task DOS is, then you have been brainwashed.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Why? It's my forking data! I wrote this paper, not Microsoft/Sun/whoever. This is my image, not Adobe's, Microsoft's, Quark's, or whoever. It's my intellectual property. I do not want to be bound to one company to access MY OWN STUFF. Imagine if to open the door to your own house, you needed a key from a company that went out of business. If you ever break the key, if the company isn't selling that key anymore, tough. You can't get into your house. (And calling a locksmith to "reverse engineer" the lock is violating the builder's intellectual property on their lock design.)
So should there be a time limit on propretary file formats? Yes. The day the program is released, I want full documentation of the format available for free and an agreement that I can't be sued for using the documentation. It's my data, not the company's and I do not want to be locked to that one company for MY data. If I choose to edit the file with a commercial, closed source program, that is my choice. If I choose to edit the file with a Free Software program, so be it. I should never, ever be beholden to a 3rd party for my own intellectual property.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
By the way, what does your sig mean?
Rather glad, personally, that ZIP wiped the floor with ARC. It was a better format, and Thom is obviously a fanatical fruitcake.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Germany never invaded the US; if it had, the response would have been umpteen times larger than when Japan did.
.
Uh, no, actualy. You see if the libbers had gotten control after WWI (if they had existed then even, thankfuly they didn't in their current form!) then we would not have HAD an active military of any even half decent sorts.
Response? What response. . .
They would have landed on the east coast, it would have been over in hours. Sucky.
So? That doesn't make sticking our nose where it doesn't belong right. What is right must always be done, regardless of the results.
Some of us believe that it is THE RESULT that defines what is right.
Thus doing proper deeds is so that proper result may come about.
Now quite frankly saving innocent lives is the proper thing in my book to do ANYWAYS;
bah fuck it I got an idea.
How about we let a bunch of big guy guys with huge ass dicks go after your ass?
You can scream for help, but don't worry, none of us within hearing range will give a fuck about what is happening to you.
Hey I got an even BETTER idea, how about we let these guys with big dicks go after YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY.
But we still won't GIVE A FUCK because hey now, that wouldn't be right under your libber policy. Or even if we did care, hey, 'isn't our business.'
Lets say we stick you on a cruiseline in international waters and let your entire family start getting assfucked.
Hope you don't mind if everybody else ignores your pleas for help.
Ok what if instead of just your family it is everybody on your block? Your neighborhood? At what point does the rape looting and pilaging become 'ok' to accept for you?
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Sorry for posting the third time to the same post. If there's any book you should spend money on it's this one. You don't like paying for books and I understand it. But if there's any single book you should ignore your feelings and actually pay for, it's this one, because you'd be funding a supporter of your cause. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
well, yah -- we have the right to pursue happiness, success, and love. Nowhere does anything guarantee we will get any of them. Patents just keep someone else from screwing you, they don't promise to make your product sell and make a profit.
Well, considering your obvious dislike and complete disregard for any of the points Ayn Rand tried to make - perhaps any argument I make will fall on deaf ears.
(For what it's worth, no, I never considered her a "personal hero" or someone to idolize. I agreed with quite a few basic points she made, but her writing style bores me. She exaggerates everything to hammer home points that could be much better made if done so more subtly.)
The fact is, the United States moves further and further away from a capitalist society all the time. As we move towards a common denominator of hybrid socialism/capitalism - individuals are expected to freely give up more of their work to the community.
Who do you think these folks are who are "in power", trying to spread the concept of the citizen having control of his/her own ideas? I think the problem is quite the opposite. The people in power find they can best stay there by convincing society that we somehow *need* them and their laws in order to survive. The more governmnet assistance programs and perceived need to "beef up" their anti-crime organizations (look at the FBI since 9-11) they can get us to agree to, the better stance they have to manipulate us for their own gain.
And no, you don't *need* control to innovate. That was never the issue. You *want* control to innovate. Otherwise, you're left with a relative few that innovate because they either A) believe in socialism and the idea that they only exist to serve the greater whole, or B) do so for some sort of personal satisfaction, despite not being rewarded in other ways for their efforts.
There's an important balance that needs to be struck. I completely agree that there's no good that comes from forever letting someone hang onto exclusive rights to an intellectual work. (Let's face it. The old adage that "There's nothing new under the sun." holds some truth. Nobody is just born with knowledge. They're taught by people who came before them.) But that doesn't mean there isn't a greater good in giving people a window of opportunity to profit from new concepts/inventions/publications.
Umm, do YOU work anyplace that uses Oracle?
In case you hadn't noticed, they've been releasing new versions... several in the last 5 years.
Where I last worked, we were in the process of doing a LOT of work to get everything working properly with 9i, as an upgrade from v8.0, which we upgraded to from v7.03/04 not that long before....
Oracle isn't actively selling any of their old versions.... certainly nothing they've developed over 5 years ago. This is true of every software package I can think of. If nothing else, changes in operating systems force developers to release upgrades.