Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Open Document Standard Not So Open
avik42 wrote to mention an EWeek article discussing Microsoft's attempts at an Open Document Standard. From the article: "According to a Microsoft representative, 'The covenant language is what was referred to as the updated license for the Open XML formats that will be submitted to ECMA International for the standardization process.' The only difference between Microsoft's November 2003 open and royalty-free license for the Office 2003 Reference Schemas and today's Office 2003 license, according to the company, is that 'Microsoft is offering a covenant not to sue for the Office 2003 Reference Schemas.'" We reported on this initiative when it was first announced.
As usual groklaw has a very thorough analysis of this subject. From their web page here are some of the potential problems.
"1. Patent protection is contingent on a conformant implementation. "Conformant" is not defined, meaning there is uncertainty needing legal advice.
2. There is no provision for partial implementation, meaning true community-based development is not covered until complete.
3. It may well mean that implementation of just a word processor is impossible -- it implies that you have to implement everything (spreadsheets & all) to reach the bar.
4. It is specific to the version currently existing, meaning I can be hooked into supporting it now, but when Office 12 or Office 13 comes out & I update to be compatible with the format in that I can get sued. The covenant Sun uses creates ongoing protection.
5. It does not grant patents to the ECMA standard as it only applies to Office 11 XML. This means a new covenant will be needed for the ECMA work.
6. If the same form of words were used for a contribution to ECMA, then those prototyping the ongoing evolution of the standard as ECMA changed it would lose protection the instant any change was made. It applies only to Microsoft's input, not to ECMA's output. Or maybe they would rather ECMA didn't change anything?"
If you ask me #1 should be "Ms lies all the time, they are probably lying now, they don't really care about anybody except themseves, they have always stabbed their partners in the back, they don't play nice with anybody, anytime, anywhere".
evil is as evil does
I'm guessing some marketers and engineers in MS got excited about open format and made a splash. For example, Mr. Brian Jones looked genuinely interested in doing so in his blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/). The executives learned about it later, and said "Oh, no, we can't let them open the format ... we'll lose the lock-in!" and they overruled them. Happens all the time in corporations.
The WMF format is very well understood. Microsoft isn't hiding anything about it. Check out wotsit.org for 3 good documents about WMF (including one from MS)
Required reading for internet skeptics
traditional legal presidents.
I think you meant Legal Precedent.
A legal president is what you're supposed to get after a valid election in democratic republics. Don't worry, the mistake is understandable. You're probably from a republic where politicians use illegal tricks to get elected... Hence your confusion.
pfff... notepad's fairly proprietary. It only understands the MS-DOS new line, which is two characters (carriage return + new line)... so opening unix style text files results in everything being truncated into a single line. This means that I find myself unable to use notepad sometimes for even the most simple editing of remote files on a *nix server.
That's not proprietary. That's just lousy. There is a difference.
My ongoing post about Microsoft, MS Office, and the XML Format.
I post it every time this topic comes up and people keep forgetting it.
The last time was Nov. 21:
They're opening their file formats because they still has a trump card (the XML Format Patent). Or has everone forgotten about this?
A quick patch or two to Microsoft Office (now one of their biggest or the biggest ca$h cow - 1/3 of their profits?) and MS Office suddenly reads|writes XML format only. They aren't about castrating themselves voluntarily. They still have shareholders to keep happy, but more importantly, they want to be the trendsetters, no matter what.[1]
How does this impact Open Office? Open Office can then read the XML Format because it's declared in the patent. But what O^2 won't be able to do is write the MS Office XML Format [except to violate the patent]. This means: no interoperability and any business which wants to migrate away from a closed system (MS Office) to Open Office can do so only as a one-way trip, burning the bridge behind them. And the company can't communicate both directions, so that forces a move en masse. Corporations do not do this.
They may not be making the right decisions, but Billy G has it covered:
"Success is a lousy teacher. It convinces smart people they can't lose."
p.s.
Remember, Office Live is still coming down the road and it's going to play a role in this as well.
______________________________________________
[1] They don't want to become what IBM became: an also-ran. They keep stopping to catch their breath, thinking they've got time to rest and the rest of the world keeps moving forward. They haven't learned their lesson. Their first online work was with Compu$erve because they didn't know anything about the Internet (this was up to the release of Win95). They did official support on Compu$erve of all things because of unfamliarity and it wasn't until Bill's "Annual Two Week Summer Sabbatical" he realized they were about to be dealt out of the future. Eventually, he learned eough to say, "I don't care what the Information Superhighway looks like as long as I have a tollbooth on it." Over time, they've attempted to grow from desktops and rise up to the Internet. Google has started at the Internet and spread out. This week's BusinessWeek cover: "Googling for Gold: A market cap over $120B. $8B in cash. Plus 5 billionaires. 1'000 millionaires. No wonder dealmakers, VCs, and brokers are clamoring for a piece of the action." When was the last time you heard this much buzz about Microsoft? Microsoft would love to think Google is a fad. Just as IBM used to have corporate singalongs, I think Microsoft has a ritual. The inner circle gets together every morning and they collectively put skid marks in their shorts. And if at any time during the day they stop, pause & loose their focus, that squishy feel and smell yanks them back to reality and reminds them they may think they're #1, but it's only because they had a head start and it's not doing them much good very much longer. Another thing I've said before: listen to Ballmer when he speaks or look for quotes when it's in print. You will hear him refer to Google in one way and one way only: search engine . This is intentional. Remember, marketing is Microsoft's strongest advantage in the business world. He wants all of the suits^w decision makers in the business world to adopt this mantra: "Why pay so much attention and money to a search engine? There are lots of search engines on the market and any day now, someone's going to come along with a better search engine than Google and we'll have spent time, effort, and money on an also-ran." You don't hear about him spending money, just Bill & Paul (Allen). Steve's got billions himself, but he's in it for the ego rush. He also knows if he slips, even a little, he'll be known in Trivial Pursuit, the Internet Edition, as the guy who let Microsoft slide from #1.
I'm probably going to lose karma points because of this, but I don't believe you understand what the difference between open format vs open source is. As long as the file format is documented and everything is available to public, then it's opened. They aren't required to make tools to "help" other platforms.
I originally thought you were just trying to be funny. Then I saw rated 5 insightful. I guess either the moderators didn't get the joke, or they themselves don't understand what an open format is.
Html I believe is a somewhat analogous example. Html is a royalty free file format that people are allowed to use and create. However, it does not mean that the creators of the html file format needed to provide development kits or tools for every platform. I mean the file format's out there. It's there so developers can use it to create the tools and development kits themselves. Microsoft decided to create the dev kit and the tools for their own platforms to further its worth and I see nothing wrong with that.
I mean if I were to complain someone wrote a tool/dev kit based on some "open format" for linux , but not for Windows, would I have the right to complain?
HD Trailers
Its GPL incompatible not because of that, but because its nontransferable. If the right ti sell software using the schemas cannot be transferred to any and all users of that software its not GPL v1 compatible, much less GPL v2.
from pcpro.co.uk>
....
Sun Microsystems is urging the state of Massachusetts not to be swayed by Microsoft's submission of Office XML to the Ecma standards body.
In a letter sent to Secretary Trimarco, Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance, Sun's head of corporate standards, Carl Cargill, outlines his concerns over Microsoft's recent move.
While Microsoft has promised to submit its work to Ecma, Cargill emphasises that promises alone should not replace existing open standards.
'Just as an agency would not purchase a product before its actual availability,' writes Cargill, 'so too would it be a mistake to rely on a single vendor's promise to submit a new product to a standards body at some point in the future. The Commonwealth owes no less to its taxpaying citizens.'
For more, read:
Sun warns caution over Microsoft's 'standard' promise