Slashdot Mirror
Developers Warned over OOXML Patent Risk
Tendraes brings us a story about legal experts who are warning that Microsoft's "covenant not to sue" over use of the OOXML specification is both ambiguous and untested. Developers wishing to make use of OOXML are unlikely to understand the complex legal language of the Open Specification Promise, and such a document - being neither a release nor a contract - has never been tested in court. From ZDNet Asia:
"David Vaile, executive director of the Cyberspace Law and Policy Center at the University of New South Wales, said that Microsoft participants at a recent symposium on the issue found it challenging to explain how an ordinary person 'or even an ordinary lawyer' could easily determine which parts of the specification were covered. 'This lack of certainty would mean a cautious lawyer may be reluctant to advise any third party to rely on the promise without extensive and potentially quite expensive analysis, and even that could be inconclusive,' Vaile said. 'In turn, this could restrict its viability as a usable standard for less well-resourced users, including small developers and many public organizations.'"
The trick is to stay away from Microsoft if you don't want trouble with the law, with licences or with vendor lockin.
No, actually you don't need to eradicate lawyers. That would be treating symptoms and not the cause of it. Edadicate all those stupid laws and make the government smaller... and most of the lawyers will disappear with it.
There's a Simple English now?
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The predecessors to lawyers caused this mess by arguing "but it doesn't SAY that!" so everything had to be spelled out in an unambiguous way to prevent people from arguing about the rules.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
On the contrary, GPL is written in a fairly comprehensible language.
I was able to understand it without any problem, and English is not even my native language.
The first step to "open" or "sharing" or whatever TF you want to call is is making stuff accessible (ie easy to use and understand) and making clear licensing is part of that.
If every OpenOffice user needs to first get a legal opinion before using OO, then they may as well buy MS Office. Companies that want to be legal won't just take the advice of www.jimmy.org.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
For starters, MS' "promise not to sue" is in no part friendly with the GPL (now that you mention it) And the mere fact that you need MS' to decide not to sue you for implementing their "open" standard is quite ridiculous (really...) What on earth prevents MS to suddenly decide to stop the promise?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Bullshit. It's a promise not to take legal action. It says so in the first sentence:
>> Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for
And certainly microsoft would never EVER even consider selling some patents to various patent trolls on behind-the-scenes-off-the-record condition that they sue particular companies.
After all. Microsoft promises not to assert themselves. That's it. What some other little guy does after they get a hold of a patent or two of the implimentation is entirely "out of their hands".
It isn't a good spec, so it isn't relevant. The same license also applies to a number of other specs that MS have participated in, including SOAP, WSDL, the VHD image format, SPF, and WMF, all of which are important standards that are relevant to open source implementers. Yes, it's worth discussing.
The _intent_ of GPL is perfectly clear, it's written in plain English in the preamble. Literal meaning is also crystal clear.
Now, _technical_ _details_ of GPL enforcement, of course, won't be the same in all jurisdictions. For example, GPL technically was not enforceable in Russia a year ago.
But you don't NEED to know all technical details of GPL to understand most of GPL consequences. And you also can read nice FAQs on GPL from the FSF.
Is *anyone, *anywhere, just aching to get their hands on the OOXML spec 'cause then they can springboard off of a bunch of the cool innovative things that MS formats can do?
Or is everyone, like me, just kinda hoping it's open enough so that we can sorta-promise clients that the software we develop will sorta-work with their piles of legacy, cruft-infested data. (At least, it'll sorta work until MS changes their document spec again and force-upgrades everyone through Genuine Windows YoureScrewed.)
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
That's not a legal commitment at all. Why can't they give a legal promise not to use their patents against Free and Open Source software?
In fact I can tell you EXCACTLY what is going to happen...
1. GPL project implements Microsoft patented format
2. Microsoft says "ZOMG! 200 patents in Linux!"
3.
4. Profit?
Good question.
The key characteristics and innovative features of the Sun agreement in the OASIS context are: The declaration:(1) constitutes a blanket promise connected with ODF that's not restricted to particular facets or features;
(2) is irrevocable;
(3) is global valid in all countries and all jurisdictions insofar as Sun is concerned;
(4) is not time-limited with respect to the past, present, or new features added to future versions of ODF [insofar as Sun is obligated under OASIS IPR rules];
(5) is reciprocal, allowing Sun to be able to take action to protect itself and the community, providing rock-solid safety for developers and end-users;
(6) has no bureaucracy or paperwork;
(7) is simple and clear;
(8) makes no reference to essential claims which sometimes govern whether a waiver is applicable: the Sun statement applies regardless. As opposed to: The Microsoft Open Specification Promise is ambiguous
Moreover, in the OSP we find additional language limiting rights:
Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification."I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The "covenant not to sue" is indeed not a particularly sound guarantee. On the other hand, if Microsoft sued over patent infringement in 10 years, I think they'd have a hard time recovering anything: any infringement wouldn't be willful and any it's hard to claim damages over something that they themselves said anybody could use.