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.'"
That kind of lax thinking would forgive any legal problems in the OSP. Look at what is industry standard, and then look at Microsoft changing legal terms such as "license" to a "promise" and originally insisting on a full implementation before having any coverage.
Without a doubt.
For anyone wanting an explanation of what the 'open specification promise' entails it's quite easy. It's a 'promise' from a corporation that barely complies with legal restraints, and only reluctantly operates within the limits of the law. So for what it's worth they might as well have published a blank page. Except then the non-lawyers would probably also conclude it was useless.
If they wanted to put their money where their mouth was they'd release any patents or other potential relevant IP into the public domain. The fact that that's not what they're doing indicates they have no intention of keeping that promise at all.
Yes, but its pointless to argue about that. MS will continue to try to lock people into their "standards", as they tried with HTML. Anything MS releases is just bait to try to get you entangled with something else.
Do away with our corrupt tax code. Support the Fair Tax
Microsoft's document on the other hand seems obfuscated on purpose, so that they can claim OOXML to be open and freely available to speed its adoption as a standard and alleviate fears of lock-in... then go to court and assert a different interpretation whenever their interests are sufficiently challenged. Given where Microsoft's interests lie, that's not a farfetched scenario.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Microsoft has not worked well with anyone. Even though they are a company based in the United States and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are U.S. citizens, they have a philosophy and mantra that goes against the principles of democracy, against the very foundations of their country that establish freedom and opportunities for ALL people. They simply want to take advantage of numbers, not grow a society in the freedoms many forefathers have fought for, but one that would continue to give them lots and lots of money. They are selfish, greedy, and self-serving. All they care about is getting people to use their software in order to continue their money stream. They don't care who they exclude, they don't have to care about the quality of their services, because they have a monopoly bought from the US-government through the avenues that allow special interests to take power away from the people and give it to the people who have a lot of money, no matter if that money was earned honestly, or not.
If the way Microsoft did business is very good, right, and moral, then why not teach this to our kids in our schools? Lacking in creativity? getting bad grades? Pay off your teacher. Buy your way through school through manipulation, power, and influence. Isn't that what Microsoft has done in the real world, except they have bought their way through the government enough to dispell public scrutiny? If we let Microsoft do this, are we not doing our kids a disservice because we are not teaching them the way the world is? Maybe the correct way is not democracy, but to make as much money as possible, any way you can, buying your way through life, and trampling over people who have less power than you?
If we would let Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer take over the world, I would have to say, your free speech would be removed, you would have to pay to post your words anywhere on the internet, and your words would of course be censored, and only speech that would be permitted would have to glorify Microsoft's cause as long as Bill and Steve could use it propaganda for their empire. They are no different than a totalitarian dictatorship trying to take over the world.
Your choice. Freedom or Bondage. I want freedom. In everything I do, I do those things that promote those ideals. In regards to computing, I use only Open Source software such as Linux, Open Office, and the rest of the gems produced as GNU/GPLed Free Open Source software which is the stuff Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer do not want anyone to use because it does not suit their purposes, like MS-Windows, Microsoft Office, or Internet Explorer (stuff that would lock anybody in to giving Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer a perpetual revenue stream without them having to earn it from me.)
Mainly I think the problem people have is that Microsoft has not made a clear commitment to make this an open standard that anyone may implement in their software. Personally, I would expect no less from Microsoft, and wouldn't be surprised if their intention was to scare third party developers away from OOXML. This is the company that has fought tooth and nail to make sure that nobody ever uses third party software, after all, and now they are in a market that increasingly demands open standards and interoperability. What better way to kill two birds with one stone?
Palm trees and 8
One thing you cannot say for the GPL is that it is ambiguous. While there may be some wriggle room for any lawyer in there, the document states in pretty clear terms what its intent it.
Recently I attended a seminar given by the Chief Council of a technology company. He was addressing the legalities of open-source and free software and, as you might expect, the topic of the legality of the GPL came up. During the talk, he commented that the GPL was generally a solid license, but had some unknowns that made it tough for a lawyer.
After the talk I asked him to elaborate a little on this point, specifically asking under what conditions he would actually advise a client to litigate against a GPL claim. He responded that the issue of dynamic linking against GPL software is a significant unknown. While the FSF has a position on the subject, it is not addressed in the GPL, there is little or no case law on the subject and there are differing opinions within the software developer community on the subject.
I'm confused--am I missing something obvious? How can a standard be patented? Isn't the whole point of a standard to specify a format or design requirement for something so that anybody that implements the standard will do it properly? I can understand patenting/copyrighting a particular implementation, but not the standard itself.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
I just read this recently. It shows how bad an idea it is to use Microsoft's "standard" ooxml, since the docx format is deliberately written for vendor lock-in. On the other hand, if you have lots of money, want to only use Microsoft products, believe everyone you care about and/or do business with is in the same position, then go right ahead. Microsoft is great if you want to stop progress.
Also useless. It's like cutting off a leg when you have a scratch. Those laws did not come into being by accident. They were and are part of a natural process that simply happens. It's pretty much standard.
Incident happens or a trend is happening. People or politicians deem is at as a bad thing. A law is written to fix the issue. Now, this may sound straightforward but the problem is that if you enter in this loop a couple of thousand times, law bloat and fragmentation start to happen. Pretty soon you are doing something illegal because it is in violation of some law. This can be a direct effect of the law(thus the intention of law) but it can also be a side-effect of the law. The huge pile of laws becomes a sort of cancer. Cancer is a bunch cells not doing what they are supposed to do. A lawcancer is a bunch of laws that aren't doing what they are supposed to do. Sure, you can cut all the laws and begin again but that simply does not solve the problem. You simply enter the loop at stage 1.
Goverments and lawbooks always start out when a state is formed. However, they all experience bloat and then *boom*, you're in an uncomfortable situation. As a small conclusion I would like to ask you, how many laws have you broken today?
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Do you want to challenge their dominance? Give a PS3 or a Wii as a gift... or even an Xbox 360
The PS3 and Wii make sense, but the Xbox360? It's also a directX based development platform... That's why most games released for the Xbox360 generally turn up on PC soon after (if not a simultaneous release).
5468652047616D65
The objections are irrelevant in this case. If a party writes a contract, covenant, deed or other legal document that could be reasonably misinterpreted the ambiguity goes against the party that wrote it. That is why lawyers try to get the other side to draft contracts, its less risky.
Since we are talking patents here the enforceability of the patent is an issue. Given the nature of the problem I somewhat doubt that if the patents are enforceable against OOXML implementations that they would not cover ODF as well.
Microsoft's general approach to patents has been to 1) assert that company A infringes its patents, 2) sign a cross licensing deal with company A in which each company gets access to the patents held by the other 3) write company A a large check being the balance owed.
Of course it is quite possible that Microsoft might start demanding royalties at some point in the future but at this point they seem to care a lot more about not being sued than actually raising net revenue.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/