Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patenting Office XML Formats
mmurphy000 writes "News(.com)+ reports that Microsoft has filed for patents in multiple jurisdictions to control the way other applications use Office's new XML-based file formats. Musings from pundits suggest that OpenOffice.org and other applications might be blocked from interoperating with Office. This, of course on the heels of today's article on Bruce Perens' concerns over patents."
How to make a non-proprietary format (XML) proprietary. Gee, wouldn't it just be simpler to cut XML out of Office entirely than to throw legions of lawyers and patents at it?
I can see the headlines now - "RIAA and Microsoft make double bust - RIAA found illegal MP3s and Microsoft found someone using XML output from Office".
Microsoft - "How far do you want your head up your backside today?"
Which assumes that OOorg is a marginal product. This may be true in some places, for some time, but after a while the failure to interoperate will become a strong argument to switch away from MSOffice.
Typical scene that is not unheard of today:
"I've sent you a Word document"
"Why not install OOorg and use that instead?"
"What's that?"
"It's like Office but free and doesn't crash."
1 hour later...
"Hey, here's your document, and thanks for the tip!"
Point is that it's much easier to switch someone from paying to free software, and almost impossible to do the reverse. I (as a long-time OOorg user) will spend considerably more effort convincing someone to use the application than any MSOffice user will spend to get me to change back.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
"Microsoft has always played an interesting game when it comes to standards," he said. "They're going to support them as necessary to get technology broadly adopted. But at the same time, they're an (intellectual property) company. That's the case with any big business."
I would have agreed, if after broadly adopted he would have said "they stop playing according to the standard and thereby break compatibility with other software". If you're an analyst on Microsoft, you should know what embrace and extend is, and I think he should have mentioned it here. That is, unless he's partial to Microsoft, which the company claims it isn't.
WinFS is the long-promised "replace the user-data parts of the filesystem with an RDBMS" feature, and a key part of Longhorn. It basically lets you register an XML schema for describing your data, and the data is then stored not as XML but broken down into a relational database (see also GnomeFS).
The PDC bloggers and MS internal staff are writing extensively about WinFS - especially Mike Deem.
One of the concerns people have with WinFS is "but then any other program could fiddle around with the individual records of what I store, how do I hide stuff or stop them making my 'files' inconsistent by screwing up or deleting individual records" - and if MS want to patent some aspect of their getting Office ready for this, does it mean we're all supposed to patent our XML before we stick into WinFS ??
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
The article wasn't too detailed on what the patent covered but if they do patent it doesn't that mean that they have to release the full spec for their format? And if that happens then other Word alternatives could be created giving people more alternatives.
Also would it be possible for me to "make" a file reader/convert for my own private use?
not that anyone for a moment should have suspected these douchebags would.
they're just speeding up the inevitable, making even more clear why software patents suck ass, and why it's urgent for everyone to reject proprietary technologies NOW. RIGHT NOW. the sooner you do it, the sooner the pain will be over, and the sooner you can start reaping the rewards.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Ages ago (back when this was a Windows box) I downloaded a little thing for GIMP that let me make GIFs. This was legal because I live in Europe with no software patents as of yet (fingers crossed/touch wood). .doc is: 'you may only use this module if software patents do not apply in your country.' Of course there'd be no way to stop Americans downloading it, which would be just terrible!
OOo could offer something similar if the patented XML format became as popular as the
Use proper W3C XML or OOo filetypes...
Didn't OOo do this kind of thing first with their XML filetypes? MS filed this in June 2002 in NZ, so surely OpenOffice.org has precent for a "Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML" maybe sans the "single file" part, which would have to be an obvious follow on?
BTW, more info is on the NZ Open Source Software portal.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
FWIW, Office 2000 is "good enough" for just about everyone. I have no need or desire to upgrade, ever. If people send me documents that it will not open, I'll ask them to resend in a down-version copy. I'm just biding my time until OpenOffice is "good enough" to replace Word. Right now OO still runs into major formatting problems. I'm working on a several hundred page developers / operations manual for example that OO just doesn't handle well, and word handles with ease. In fact, I started writting it in OO before needing to convert. OO is oh-so-close.
However, I'm a New Zealander, and I'd love to actually try and shoot down this at the NZ patent office based on the wonderful prior art that is OpenOffice.org. However, I saw these two "claims" in the patent:
The rest of the patented method applies to OOo, as OOo provides schemas and writes out a well-formed XML document etc. etc. etc. However, I'm not sure if OOo provides "hints" in the files (anyone care to comment what MS is on about there?).
The kicker is claim [0009]. If you save a
IANAL, but this appears to mean that this patent is "sufficiently original" (haha) that it can probably slip past the rubber-stamp-brigade at the patent office as OOo won't be citeable as prior art. Apparently the NZ patent office is sufficiently stupid that they recognise the "one-click" patent, so I don't hold high hopes for this one.
So, has anyone heard of a word processor that has an XML file format that contains all its binary data? If so, post links under this thread
P.S. And NewtonsLaw, if you're reading this, I hope to see a plan of action on Aardvark tomorrow
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
Some may recall, for example, this past article on this topic here, or the specific license terms offered here, the key points of which are specifically GPL incompatible.
When national governments choose to build and distribute information, such as the Danish national government has, on patent license encumbered document formats, whether or not royalty bearing, possessing field of use scope, disclaiming of certain legal rights such as to bring suit, or other specific restrictions, or even composed of terms permitting unlimited modifications to the license by the license holder, as this one also does, such governments are creating restricted markets in the public's own goods. This is of course fundimentally improper and certainly is also illegal restraint of trade in the European Union.
There are many implications in having patent encumbered XML schemas, all of them negative for the schema so encumbered. I had long ago considered this specific possibility and considered what actions I would find nessisary to take when that day arrived. One option I think might be useful is for those in Europe to file a brief with Mario's office (European Competition Minister), and note how this issue relates to their current anti-trust case.
Patents do nothing but slow down an industry and promote laziness....
1) Ford, which is considered the model on how to build cars and do processes HAD to get around patents so that he could build a car that EVERYONE can afford.
2) Windsurfer which invented the windsurfing board had a patent, which they only enforced two years before the end of the patent. Until five years before the end of the patent there was no Wind surfing industry. Windsurfer then cashed in and forced bankruptcy of major windsurfers. Where is Windsurfer today? Sitting on money doing nothing.
3) Laser had a patent which caused nobody to do anything with lasers. Once the patent expired we ended up with laser pointers, last light shows, etc, etc..
4) Patents CANNOT be bought and defended by "small" people. Patents cost about 40,000 EUROS a pop and this is not money for the "small" company. This is money for the large company.
Now about your reference to MS and Internet Explorer. Say what you will, but Netscape was no better than Microsoft. I was around in the Netscape days and they were bastards. Once I represented a company who wanted to purchase five thousand licenses to Netscape. Netscape ignored the company because it was too small and companies like Deutsche Telekom were more important.
Microsoft might clone ideas, just like all of the other companies do as well in the industry. The software industry is like writing, we all clone!
The problem in software are the contracts. For example why do I have to buy Windows 5 times for a single computer?
Sir, I would have wished that you would have used your lawyer abilities to reign in the contracts instead of going for the easy cash in Patents. Remember you are going to be responsible for a mess that *I* have to live in.
"A patented, closed, proprietary file format can't hurt anyone if no one is using it."
Especially now that AbiWord can read OpenOffice documents, and as anyone who dual-boots (or runs a mixed-OS network knows), OpenOffice is the easiest way to edit the same documents on different OS's.
Microsoft Office is falling behind. It's pretty pathethic to see it at work, not able to open any SXW documents. What, you need to install a second word-processor just to hold its hand and convert documents?
Plus, as anyone working on important documents knows, what happens when your hard-disk, printer, or motherboard fails. "Sorry, you are not authorised to install MS-Office on a second computer" it will tell you, as you try to print your dissertation late at night on a borrowed computer... having a CD you can install anywhere without worry certainly has its advantages.
OK, I only run a small business, but I do exactly that. I refuse to accept or send out Word documents. I haven't lost any business yet. I send out PDFs (or RTFs if requested), and demand the same in return. And if push comes to shove, everyone can read a plain text document.
If only more people had the balls to stand up to the so-called "office standards"...
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
I can imagine Microsoft being a victim of it's own success here.
.htz?) that would be great.
If by using DRM/Palladium etc. to prevent both:
- Using ripped off copies of Word
- Interoperability with Word
Suddenly a word document will be vastly less useful in the wild than it is now.
Right now I, my mother, her dog and it's accountant can all read Word docs one way or another but none of us have shelled out for Office, and we probably never will.
I actually love using basic HTML for docs, the only problem is that "a document" is actually a bunch of resources. If there was some encapsulated for (a simple zip even?
(This is where someone calls me a Bozo and tells me it already exists...)
>Have a boilerplate response ready explaining that you only accept documents in open formats
That isn't going to work nearly as well as:
"Our office is standardized on Office 97, and with 200 seats, the cost to 'upgrade' to Office 2003 is beyond our capacity. Please resend the file in a backwards compatible manner."
That will get their computing department to ensure people save their files in a compatible format, as most businesses *are* going to stick to Office 2000 or Office 97. They've probably had that message sent to them dozens of times before you give it to them, so they're going to listen to it.
A one-off "it's not open source" message wouldn't get my suppliers, for example, to stop sending me their pricesheets in Excel files.
This is the same as using corel draw for your graphics. It might not be the graphics industry standard, but all the companies I've dealt with (From the National and Regional Phone Books to Local Newspapers, all the way down to the local Ad-Rag) will explain, in detail, how you can save corel draw files in a manner they will accept. They specifically mention corel draw because it *is* popular enough that not supporting it means lost business (despite popular belief by stupid hoity-toity graphics folks at the local learning centers). However, I'd not expect a document on how to save a compatible Xfig file...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Yeah! Right on!
Microsoft, a convicted monopolist who are operating under various restrictions including allowing interoperability between competing products and their own, make a specific move designed to block interoperability between competing products and their own, therfore setting themselves up for a direct breach of the DOJ setlement and we should all be cheering? Yeah, that must be it.
Hey, I have no problem with Microsoft patenting anything they invent. More power to them. What we're worried about is that they will not licence those patents in a fair manner (I don't even mean "For free" You don't always get a free lunch as much as many Slashdoters would like to think). If Microsoft refuse to licence these patents, or use them as a bargaining peice to extract licences on other technology then that is bad.
Like it or not people do need to exchange information, they do use defacto standard Office formats to do it, and we do need to have software other than Microsoft Office which can read and write those formats. Just saying "Hey, don't use Office format documents!" is myopic and stupid.
Sorry, but that is hardly insightful.
If the consumer really weren't benefitting, then they'd seek out alternatives: they do exist, as I'm sure you know. I've been using one for 9-1/2 years: Linux and associated alternative applications.
Despite the fact that I dislike Microsoft's tactics, it's hard to dispute that their dominance of the market has encouraged adoption of computing by the masses by making computers more useful through easy interoperation: people want to know that what they buy can operate well with others' equipment, so any barrier to this is a barrier to adoption of computing in general. Most of the geeks here (myself included) couldn't care less about how easy or hard it is to get Office data into a Linux spreadsheet, but we are a tiny, tiny minority of all people using computers.
Of course, standards would get us to Nirvana just as market dominance by MS is and allow the tiny minority of us who use something other than Windows to make full use of our computing power under our chosen environments; but there's hardly an economic or public benefit argument to be made for having the guv'mint do our dirty work and go after MS just because they don't make the lives of (generously) 5% of computer users easier.
The only convincing argument IMO for getting the government involved is to ensure that We the Taxpayers aren't getting screwed out of our money by MS: from this perspective, the government doesn't need to pursue litigation, but only needs to state that they will purchase only software that stores and transmits data in royalty-free formats so alternative vendors can be used effectively in price negotiations. At this point, MS would be required to patent-unencumber their file formats in order to get their software into federal offices, and thus into the offices of federal contractors, and from there into subcontractors, etc. I don't see this option being pursued. Why? It seems like it would get MS to play ball a lot more quickly than decades-long litigation.
[ home ]
As I underestand it, if MS patents their file formats, that will prevent anyone without a license from generating files in MS Office formats, but it will not prevent people from displaying them or converting the information into other formats. That's because such patents are for methods of "storing" information. I know this seems pedantic, but law is pedantic, and I'm thinking of the precedent of LZW compression. Without a license, you couldn't generate GIF images but you could display them and convert them. So, although I'm distrustful of Microsoft (and don't use their products), and opposed to software patents, perhaps these patents aren't as dangerous as they seem. Any lawyers know for sure?