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.'"

Comments

Right!

[rolfc]

The trick is to stay away from Microsoft if you don't want trouble with the law, with licences or with vendor lockin.

Re:Right!

[bmartin]

MSFT has done an amazing job of locking people in. PC Gaming is predominantly a Direct X-driven industry. Take a look at Halo. People are going to stick w/ Windows instead of OS X or Linux as long as MS dominates the gaming world.

People stick with what they're used to. Wine helps with gaming in OS X and Linux, but it's not going to challenge MSFT's dominance.

Do you want to challenge their dominance? Give a PS3 or a Wii as a gift... or even an Xbox 360. Put an end to Windows gaming. Install a copy of OpenOffice.org instead of that evaluation copy of MS Office that comes with their new computer.

Are you sick of providing tech support to your relatives? Show them what it's like to be virus- and spyware-free with OS X or Linux. Let them run Vista and Ubuntu (or whatever distro you like) side-by-side on the same hardware and let them decide for themselves which one better suits their needs.

I can honestly say that I've had a lot of luck. My parents, my little brother, my fiancee and her father all run Ubuntu now. We use CUPS to print documents from our laptops and it never fails. We mount remote file shares easily and spend countless hours playing Battle for Wesnoth, Runescape, etc.

I don't care if you're a Mac or a Linux person... get people to use something other than Windows... anything else will do.

Re:Right!

[srmalloy]

IANAL, either, but you will also note that the document also states:

This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications. New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list.

As I read that, in other words, it says "You can use the specifications listed below in those specific versions. Should we choose to update those specifications and make our OOXML implementation conformant to and dependent upon any new features in those specifications, we reserve the right to not add them to the document and sue your ass off if you try to maintain compliance with OOXML in our full implementation."

Re:too many lawyers

[KDR_11k]

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.

Re:The same has been said of the GPL

[Vexorian]

Don't believe the hype. Don't believe the FUD. There are real reasons to complain about M$. This isn't one of them.

Hell yes it is. In fact, if there is a reason to complain about MS, optionally-open XML IS! In fact, you have not credibility left for saying the non sense you've just said.

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?

I have a question

[Mateo_LeFou]

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.)

Re:Promises are different?

[ozmanjusri]

Why are Sun covenants GPL friendly and Microsoft's not?

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.