How do you find The US's own Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling not fair, or not objective? Anti-trust laws exist, and microsoft's legal team knows about them. They are the ones that should have steared microsoft in another direction as they were gaining a monopoly position. If you don't want to believe it was microsoft's intention to break the law, then point at their lawyers for not protecting them from doing so. But microsoft's actions in repeatedly crossing the border of legality, dictates otherwise.
Anti-trust laws exist in Europe also and any EU bias can not interfere with justice. I would like to see evidence to the contrary, if you have any, that this is the case. Such evidence would help microsoft's case alot also. It is not a question of unfair laws, as it is a question of over-sized corporations having the money and thus the power to ruin the market in their favor. The EU has the obligation to protect its market, as did the US a couple of years ago. I would be interested if you pointed out how exactly Judge Jackson was wrong in his rulings after you actually read them. I don't think you believe that He was also biased against microsoft, in any way, do you?
Until then, I can only reject your post as unfair and and misinformed.
Followup: when I said GranParent post, I was thinking Original Post. Sorry about that. While I agree with the system the original post has in mind, this is simply not the case. What he is talking about is a political/economical change of how things work today. This is another discussion and not one microsoft should be judged by. Microsoft can and is judged by current laws and is found guilty...
Sure it is. That's what we Europians do: wait for a company to become successfull and then we drag it through courts so we can get a cut of the money. [/sarcasm]
And the US DOJ does the exact same thing! They wait for successful business men to emerge and then ambush their success! [/sarcasm]
Does Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ring any bells?
Listen, liking microsoft or their products is not a bad thing, but there is a whole world out there wanting to make a living on software and microsoft is using their position to make sure that, when they are playing, only they have a chance. This is what the courts in the US, the EU and apparently South Korea have ruled against microsoft. You can paint it anyway you want so it will fit in to your point of view, but the fact that MS violates anti-trust laws has been decided in a court of law more than one time already throughout the world. The fine they are asked to pay can in no way be called extortion. Unless I can call the fine I am asked to pay for speeding extortion, because I disagree with the court's ruling.
Grandparent post knows nothing about how the law works. Details of why microsoft is treated like this can be found searching for "microsoft monopoly" on google. First result:
The landmark ruling by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. This document describes accurately why microsoft is ruled a monopoly, addresses all the straw man arguements often posted of "microsoft not holding 100% market share, therefor is not a monopoly" and so on and so forth... If you have the time, read about it. It beats posting emotion driving posts that leads to flamewars, without posting any facts to back it up...
The Windows XP powertoys WinAmp Media Player Classic Daemon Tools (Allows you to mount ISOs and other images, attempting to defeat copy protections as well) WinKey (Lets you launch applications from Windows Key + WinRAR Some sort of notepad replacement. I use Notepad++ personally. ffdshow (Decodes DivX, XVid and almost everything else you can think of. Not needed if you use MPC) Civilization IV:)
Not trying to be a zealot here, but all this is available in linux:
Shortcuts can be changed to use the windows key for any app. I'm not quiet sure what the functionality the GP is talking about (win key + winrar)
Text editors are a dime a dozen in linux, some very powerful ones too..
mplayer plays any file I throw at it without the need of downloading codecs, I've heard good words for VLC also, but haven't needed to try it out yet.
and if you like having multiple desktops there is an XP powertoy to manage virtual desktops(up to four) it does the usual, apps open on one desktop do not show up in the others ( saves a LOT of screen realestate) also there is an option to preview all four desktops at once to see wich one the app you want is on ( havn't seen this on my linux boxes, anyone know if this is possible with kde?) and someone mentioned before the "open command window here" shell integration is a nice toy for changing permissions A.K.A "file attributes"
Virtual desktop have been there since day 1 (if you want them to appear on all desktops, make the windows sticky), preview also, but I'm guessing the mac-like functionality you're talking about exists in xgl. Also you can config the file manager in KDE so it automatically has a terminal following your graphical browsing of folders, just click on the link box down right (if I remember correctly, because I use XFCE). What I haven't found in windows yet, is a utility that lets me shade my windows by using the scroll button on my mouse. Is there such a thing on windows? But Age of Empires II is the reason my windows partition boots up every few weeks! =)
Again, not trying to be a zealot, just discussing!;)
What you are saying is that open standards are roadblocked by software patents which can be true. This is true in OSS also. But this still does not make wmv an 'open standard', nor does it make microsoft promoting it, using windows, legal.
Anyhow, let's rethink why patents were/are granted in the first place: Putting it simple, to give an advantage to a small inventor to implement his idea and profit from it, before someone with more resources beats him to it. Patents weren't meant to give mega corporations the power to block ideas under the excuse that they own IP as if it were some kind of exclusive asset that they own forever. This promotes prasitic trends in the IT industry and quiet frankly brings up a barrier to small developers on what they can and can not implement, because as you pointed out, it is hard not to infringe on a patent. The use of patents today is abusing the intent of patent law and therefor the whole patent system must be reformed so patents are upheld for a reasonable time (Say, 18 months and thereafter be released into public domain), if not be rendered totally obsolete on software. This is why, as a Europian, I'm with the people against software patents in Europe.
Anyhow, I think your previous post points out wonderfully why software patents stifle innovation and raise roadblocks for small developers.
Actually you do. Only thing that is excluded is those who want to use the standard completely free as in beer...
This is the one I don't understand. Open standards means equal chance of competition for everyone, even free software developers. Do we not want cost of software to go down? Do we not want free developers to contribute in pushing technology forward? It's fine wmv is a patent-encumbered standard by my book, just as long as we don't mistake it for an open standard like the ones talked about in this article. And just as long as we keep in mind that wmv isn't a 'killer format' everyone needs, just one that is really popular because it is on all windows systems by default. Same with OpenXML.
Here's a nice irony, the way it goes, Microsoft may actually end up PAYING more for WMV lisences in future than gaining from them. The royalty fee is predetermined, but how it is split for parties owning the IP isn't, so by joining the standard patent pool companies get access to royalty stream. Provided their IP was accepted by patent body as legimate patent claim on WMV. And the current situatiation is that WMV10 has atleast 12 other companies besides Microsoft.
This is also very interesting, but it doesn't make the pushing of wmv less illegal. Other companies pushing their own formats (quicktime, real) are also losing because wmv is automatically popular, even if it is not the best format for the job. One could argue that the benefits microsoft is reaping from pushing wmv as a standard, is well accounted for even if microsoft gets nothing out of it economically.
We are in the middle of a format war. Open Standards (as in patent-free, royality-free) are the standards that will foster growth and business oportunities for all. If wmv was such a standard, I would be behind it. Until then, I prefer to want a standard that would give me the same chance as microsoft has to develop something novell and make a living out of it.
You can indeed make a GPL application that will play WMV files. You can use DirectShow to access all the installed codecs in a Windows environment. The decoder is already there, you're just using it.
Yes, if you utilize the decoder that ships with windows. The licensing cost of the decoder is integrated in the windows license. If I'm developing a windows only app, I'm ok. But what happens when I want to port the application to linux or any non microsoft OS? I'll have to make use of patented technology. Not a problem if i'm willing to pay the fee. But how is that 'open'?
Let alone the wmv format is popular because of it being tied with windows. That being said, it is a good format IMHO. But the lack of choice, I believe, is obvious...
There is little really universal agreement about the usage of either of the terms "open" or "standard". Some people restrict their use of the term "open" to royalty-free technologies, while others do not; and some people restrict their use of the term "standard" to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis, while others do not.
I'm with the people who attribute open to the full extent of the word. Jocknerd was more to the point that a concrete defenition of the word should be accepted. So we can argue on something more meaningful than how we use words.
Anyway, a standard encumbered with patents and royalities defeats some of the purposes of a true open standard in the first place. One being that you do not have a true leveled field of competition. Two, you need the permition of the one holding the patent to develop an application that utilizes it. It is in microsoft's power to not grant permition to legally use its IP. Or to permit it at a high price that would effectively kill the competition. Look at microsoft's acquired patents on OpenGL and the fears being expressed. Third, why should free applications be excluded from competing? Why should I the consumer have to pay for something when my job can be done the way I want it to with a free (OSS, CSS, doesn't matter) application? This is why we need to emphasize that by saying open standard, we mean truly Free.
The case with wmv is more evil than it not being an open standard though. It is illegally pushed by microsoft, by tying it to windows. Automatically their patent-encumbered standard becomes popular because you can count on it being on 90% of PCs. It's leveraging a monopoly if I ever saw one. But this is a discussion for another thread...
wmv is open standard . Microsoft has submitted it to standards body inorder to get it as one of the codecs in Blue Ray disc standard, and HD-Disc standard.
It is A standard. Not an open one with the full meaning of the word open. Can I make a GPL application that will legally play wmv files? Can I make a closed source freeware application that can play wmv files without paying a royality to microsoft? I would happily admit I am wrong if you provide me links to the opposite...
HTML, TCP/IP, GSM, PCI , XMPP ( jabber, google talk ).. etc. etc.
We use Open standards very much in our everyday life dont we?
Word, ppt, excel, smb, quicken, asf, wmv
Even more interesting: compare which of the above said standards actually fostered growth in technology and paved new ways of doing business:
The first set brought everyone the web, the internet, mobile phones, a plethora of choices for expansion cards, etc... all going down price-wise. Alot of opportunities of doing business also.
The second ones, well... made us have to pick certain platforms/vendors to be relevant... I don't know about everyone else, but over here the price of windows or Office is not going down! Magic food indeed.
I don't think so. Alot of goverments around the world are not using windows. Most are US allies. If Microsoft were to bring up such a point, it would quickly lose ground because it has no logical base to build upon. The only thing it could bring (with a push from mass media of course) is a general emotion that linux is somehow evil. Even that isn't a probability, because I don't think corporations that have interests in linux, like IBM, would just sit around for that to happen...
Apple will go down windows' rathole more or less. Not today or tommorow though.
The way I see it, Steve is gonna wait to see how the mac sells after Vista is launched. When the first enthusiasm of a triple boot system (or virtualization) calms down and sales eventually stabilize to a percent, he will then license the DRM technology that essentially makes a modern mactel what it is, to vendors. To be 'Mac certified' and therefor be granted the 'Apple logo', the vendors will need to provide 100% compatible hardware so apple won't need to fuss about driver support. If this works out and mac sales raise even further, believe it, Hardware Vendors will be striving for a 'mac sticker' and Hardware components will be jumping over backwards to be Mac compatible. The Mac enthusiasts will still buy only 'the original mac', but at the same time Steve cashes in on ordinary PC sales. So does Intel. As you say, this is probably why 'the iwork crew is hard at work on replacing every part of MS Office with an app that stands head and shoulders above its counterpart, just as Keynote does', because microsoft won't like it one bit and eventually stop MS Office support.
So I believe we will be seeing a 'battle of the stickers' in the future.
:) I completely overlooked the last line of his post. I thought it was part of the sig and skipped it... I must have been lacking caffeine at that time. Sorry for posting something that looked like a spelling nazi to GP, I was actually aiming to say the same thing he did! By the way, my spelling is terrible...
I don't get it. Why is adding to a standard bad, if it isn't done in a proper manner? Why the changes in HTML then? I like the microsoft employee's reasoning more. You need a 'defined change control process', not total staticness. If ODF currently has such a process (which I don't have knowledge of if they do, or do not, but I'll find it surprising if they don't), I don't see why it is so hard to add a 'save as ODF' option in Office. Office should only be required to add ODF support to the extent the standard supports features Office has to offer. If ODF doesn't support italics, MS isn't required to make it work. The end user can pick Open XML for his documents and pick ODF when he needs the portability or the openness. So there would be no case of 'having a reader which will not render something in italics when it is required to'. Anything that is, say, an ODF 1.0 document should open properly in any app that supports ODF 1.0. The problem for microsoft would be if this standard was to be 'added to' often and not in a timely/controlled manner...
Should CSS not be further reviewed because some browsers don't support newer versions fully? Should RTF support in Word be outcasted because it doesn't display all the features open XML will or.doc does?
As long as features are added, THE standard will never exist...;)
I am not sure. I can't speak for the office team (or any team, for that matter;)), and if I was one of the people that could, I am not sure how much legal whitewashing my answer would need:)
That's ok, I'm not trying to get you in trouble!;)
Good points by the way.
A 180 degree turn towards ODF would be kind of awkward at this point.
I don't think the government bodies are asking for a 180 degree turn of microsoft's direction. As I see it, they only need a 'save as' option that will work with office. Open XML could still lead the way features-wise until these features can be standardized so they can be embedded in the ODF format. Since the two file formats are esentially XML, I'm guessing it won't be a very painfull process, but I don't know the specifics.
I wonder if the Office XML formats will satisfy the governments that are interested in this type of legislation.
I think the problem is the patents on the formats that are in the way. If a company sues MS over patent infringement, they automatically lose the right to use these formats. This gives MS an unfair advantage over competition I guess. It is in the governments' interests to have viable alternatives, so aside the lobbying powers, I think ODF is the best way to go. Even if some features will not be present immediantly, long term MS and competitors will be 'fighting' on terms of merits and not formats.
I would be curious to know what people consider truly open file formats
I'm a linux user. Saying that, I find MS Office to be 'the best choice for their situation' in alot of cases as you say, let alone the interoperating problem I have when sending a windows user a document that needs features RTF can't support. I know asking for a port of Office to linux is a bit farfetched, but I believe a sufficient standard supported well by Office and any other competitor would be just enough to trigger healthy competition. Sadly, Open XML is not 'GPL compatible' and can be used against OS projects in the future. But I'm guessing that even if, say, Corel wanted to port wordperfect to linux, they would be in the same acquard position of losing 'patent power' over microsoft if they were to innovate under the current patent laws.
I outlined some of my requirements in my original posting. To be realistically useful, you need more than just openness.. you also need a defined change control process, some sort of "owning body" etc. Fragmentation in the file format space makes everybody lose.
This is what Oasis is for. Fragmenation won't be that much a problem, as the versioning sytem you pointed out. I admit that I don't have information on this myself, so I can't argue on how big a problem that could be also.
Bottom line, what I want from microsoft is to just play fair and as you say, win on technical merits and not on patents and FUD or leveraging monopolies and what not. I know for sure that innovation is not a microsoft only thing, I see it daily in opensource projects. This is why I believe the management is the problem over there at Redmond and not the developers. Don't comment on the last remark...;)
I can understand what you are saying. But also, this means that MS will be disqualified from the government contracts they want in these two states right? After all, they are asking for open standards. What I'm saying is, ok, microsoft isn't prioritizing on supporting ODF. It's their call. But, why the big fuss over these two states then? I don't know the exact economic impact a loss in these contracts would have on MS, but how does such a loss weigh in when comparing it to the 'fuss' of supporting ODF? How much demand will it take for support of ODF to be a priority?
... a format which will never be able to fully capture the structure of a document the same way the proprietary formats currently used do.
Why will they never be able to fully capture the structure of a document the same way the proprietary formats currently used do? I can understand a claim that ODF doesn't _currently_ support some features Word has, but not that it won't in the future. It is an extendable format. This is a good point someone could point out if I were to ask: 'Why doesn't microsoft use ODF as their default format', which I am not. What I am asking is 'why doesn't microsoft support ODF as it supports wordperfect, or RTF?'. In other words, to the extent the standard allows features of, say, Word to be embedded in it. Still, I get the point of the cost effectiveness of such an effort. Was the cost of losing business in these two states acounted for? Because I find it weird they portray their non-open format as an open one just to not lose their contracts there if it was... I believe it is more a matter of control of formats than it is a matter of resources. After all, they are the biggest software company in the world with billions in assets. Hiring a few more developers to support ODF can't be that much a problem...
Fist off: I agree with you totally. It's a sad way the world works, lobbying and all. Not only IBM or Sun, but MS also. Just look at the pro-software patents camp here in Europe.
Anyway, the question: Why doesn't Microsoft just support ODF? It's in their interest, just as supporting wordperfect's formats were. I'm confident they have the manpower to compete on open standards and remain the market leader for a long time ahead, as much as I personally don't support them. It's a simple solution to a simple 'problem' these states brought up. They would most likely win any government contract either way, because they have 'better legacy support' for the doc format and they have the advantage of not having to make the government retrain existing users, or to have citizens buy or download another office suite. It would also be a tremendous PR boost, even if some of us would be careful in embracing microsoft again. The only good reason I can think of is MS's vendor lockin. Which is really sad in the same way lobbying is. IMHO, with the assets MS has, and with the bragging about innovation they do, they should be the first to embrace open standards to "Show people who the boss is". Today they just think and work the way a 'small player' would... It's embarrassing for a company their size...:(
Not until I buy a new PC. Unlike with Windows XP (NT 5.1), which was targeted at the same hardware profile as Windows 2000 (NT 5.0), Microsoft is making it clear that only a new PC will run Windows Vista properly. Linux live CDs project the opposite image, that Linux can be "switched" to.
So, to upgrade to Vista, you have to buy a new PC, wheras to switch to linux you just need to buy a new scanner? Cool. I personally had the same problem a while back with my HP deskjet 710. I waited a bit and they built support for it. I could have just gone out to buy a real printer, but I didn't really print much at that time... Since then, I have never encountered unsupported hardware again. But I won't rule out some people might experience this.
I've tried. The answer will almost universally be "Never heard of it" or some other form of "I don't know".
Yeah, places like these work with what is asked for more. If a thousand people ask about linux and they "don't know", they'll eventually do something about it. Til then, keep on asking.;)
Which requires at least two trips to the store, double the bus fare that one would have paid when sticking with the version of Windows included with a PC. Understand how penny-wise-pound-foolish novice computers are.
Well not really. If before hand you make a list of linux compatible, say gpu's, and the go to walmart, it's one less bus fare! but, I'll give you this: linux friendly products do not announce this on the wrapper as they do for windows. This is the barrier linux has to overcome to gain marketshare. But, for someone determined to have a linux system, these extra steps are trivial to say the least. A grandma-type won't be shopping for computer components OTOH, but for full linux-supported sytems. Say Dell...
There's a difference. The companies that set up Windows on new home PCs advertise nationally; the companies that do so with Linux don't.
Yeah, that's true. Linux relies more on the grandson to get grandma involved with linux. Customer experience though is on linux's side. I've had alot of grandma-types ask me for a CD of linux once they saw me in action on this old laptop. Once I tell them there is no way you can catch a dialer with linux, no way you can browse shady sites and have popups haunt you, now reason to go on a wild codec hunt to play a video you downloaded, they are asking how they can ditch windows alltogether...
Which distribution do you recommend that does this?
Any modern distribution that uses a modern packet manager can do this. Stick with the "beginner distros", mandriva, ubuntu, even SuSE if you want a near windows experience. But what you are doing wrong is that you are looking for a windows rip-off. Linux is not one. It's a whole new OS with different ways of doing things. Once you give yourself some time to learn how it works, returning to windows will be a pain. Some stuff that annoy me in windows now: Constant dialog boxes/balloons, lack of Shading windows (roll them up to only a title bar), lack of multiple desktops (well to be fair windows has this with an extra download), lack of one click installs/upgrades. It's a whole new world and quiet frankly I've been looking around for programs that build this functionality in windows. I've found win-get on sourceforge, pretty cool and today I found Google pack. I'll have to try that out when I decide to boot back to windows. Believe me: Just as you want linux to be as user friendly as windows, I want windows to be as user friendly as linux... And I'm not kidding here.
Which is a problem for grandmas who use Ubuntu or the like. All versions of Windows, on the other hand, respond to the same "D:\setup.exe"
You give people less credit than they deserve. Any Grandma that can find out how to install, say, corel draw with it's double serial numbers can surely point to a differant directory on the CD for her specific linux-distro repository. Keep in mind the commercial user-friendly distro's are a small few of the whole number of distros. They can be easily supported by a proprietary vendor if it decides to offer products. What you are doing is limiting the way linux can get proprietary or free software to walmart, and building on that fact as it was universal. Most people I know, even windows users, buy software online more than they do Walmart, because it is more conveniant. Linux installs are: point to repository (online or offline) select package, install. That's it.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you find The US's own Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's ruling not fair, or not objective? Anti-trust laws exist, and microsoft's legal team knows about them. They are the ones that should have steared microsoft in another direction as they were gaining a monopoly position. If you don't want to believe it was microsoft's intention to break the law, then point at their lawyers for not protecting them from doing so. But microsoft's actions in repeatedly crossing the border of legality, dictates otherwise.
Anti-trust laws exist in Europe also and any EU bias can not interfere with justice. I would like to see evidence to the contrary, if you have any, that this is the case. Such evidence would help microsoft's case alot also. It is not a question of unfair laws, as it is a question of over-sized corporations having the money and thus the power to ruin the market in their favor. The EU has the obligation to protect its market, as did the US a couple of years ago. I would be interested if you pointed out how exactly Judge Jackson was wrong in his rulings after you actually read them. I don't think you believe that He was also biased against microsoft, in any way, do you?
Until then, I can only reject your post as unfair and and misinformed.
mmmmm, pr0n
I wonder how pr0n is pronounced... Hmmmm.... 8)
Followup: when I said GranParent post, I was thinking Original Post. Sorry about that. While I agree with the system the original post has in mind, this is simply not the case. What he is talking about is a political/economical change of how things work today. This is another discussion and not one microsoft should be judged by. Microsoft can and is judged by current laws and is found guilty...
Sure it is. That's what we Europians do: wait for a company to become successfull and then we drag it through courts so we can get a cut of the money.
[/sarcasm]
And the US DOJ does the exact same thing! They wait for successful business men to emerge and then ambush their success!
[/sarcasm]
Does Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ring any bells?
Listen, liking microsoft or their products is not a bad thing, but there is a whole world out there wanting to make a living on software and microsoft is using their position to make sure that, when they are playing, only they have a chance. This is what the courts in the US, the EU and apparently South Korea have ruled against microsoft. You can paint it anyway you want so it will fit in to your point of view, but the fact that MS violates anti-trust laws has been decided in a court of law more than one time already throughout the world. The fine they are asked to pay can in no way be called extortion. Unless I can call the fine I am asked to pay for speeding extortion, because I disagree with the court's ruling.
Grandparent post knows nothing about how the law works. Details of why microsoft is treated like this can be found searching for "microsoft monopoly" on google. First result:
The landmark ruling by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. This document describes accurately why microsoft is ruled a monopoly, addresses all the straw man arguements often posted of "microsoft not holding 100% market share, therefor is not a monopoly" and so on and so forth... If you have the time, read about it. It beats posting emotion driving posts that leads to flamewars, without posting any facts to back it up...
Not much of a video-editing geek myself, so I have not tried this. But avidemux is said to be somewhat a clone of VirtualDub. Hope this helps.
The Windows XP powertoys WinAmp Media Player Classic Daemon Tools (Allows you to mount ISOs and other images, attempting to defeat copy protections as well) WinKey (Lets you launch applications from Windows Key + WinRAR Some sort of notepad replacement. I use Notepad++ personally. ffdshow (Decodes DivX, XVid and almost everything else you can think of. Not needed if you use MPC) Civilization IV :)
;)
Not trying to be a zealot here, but all this is available in linux:
mount iso in linux with a simple mount command
Shortcuts can be changed to use the windows key for any app. I'm not quiet sure what the functionality the GP is talking about (win key + winrar)
Text editors are a dime a dozen in linux, some very powerful ones too..
mplayer plays any file I throw at it without the need of downloading codecs, I've heard good words for VLC also, but haven't needed to try it out yet.
and if you like having multiple desktops there is an XP powertoy to manage virtual desktops(up to four) it does the usual, apps open on one desktop do not show up in the others ( saves a LOT of screen realestate) also there is an option to preview all four desktops at once to see wich one the app you want is on ( havn't seen this on my linux boxes, anyone know if this is possible with kde?) and someone mentioned before the "open command window here" shell integration is a nice toy for changing permissions A.K.A "file attributes"
Virtual desktop have been there since day 1 (if you want them to appear on all desktops, make the windows sticky), preview also, but I'm guessing the mac-like functionality you're talking about exists in xgl. Also you can config the file manager in KDE so it automatically has a terminal following your graphical browsing of folders, just click on the link box down right (if I remember correctly, because I use XFCE). What I haven't found in windows yet, is a utility that lets me shade my windows by using the scroll button on my mouse. Is there such a thing on windows? But Age of Empires II is the reason my windows partition boots up every few weeks! =)
Again, not trying to be a zealot, just discussing!
What you are saying is that open standards are roadblocked by software patents which can be true. This is true in OSS also. But this still does not make wmv an 'open standard', nor does it make microsoft promoting it, using windows, legal.
Anyhow, let's rethink why patents were/are granted in the first place: Putting it simple, to give an advantage to a small inventor to implement his idea and profit from it, before someone with more resources beats him to it. Patents weren't meant to give mega corporations the power to block ideas under the excuse that they own IP as if it were some kind of exclusive asset that they own forever. This promotes prasitic trends in the IT industry and quiet frankly brings up a barrier to small developers on what they can and can not implement, because as you pointed out, it is hard not to infringe on a patent. The use of patents today is abusing the intent of patent law and therefor the whole patent system must be reformed so patents are upheld for a reasonable time (Say, 18 months and thereafter be released into public domain), if not be rendered totally obsolete on software. This is why, as a Europian, I'm with the people against software patents in Europe.
Anyhow, I think your previous post points out wonderfully why software patents stifle innovation and raise roadblocks for small developers.
Interesting points.
Actually you do. Only thing that is excluded is those who want to use the standard completely free as in beer...
This is the one I don't understand. Open standards means equal chance of competition for everyone, even free software developers. Do we not want cost of software to go down? Do we not want free developers to contribute in pushing technology forward? It's fine wmv is a patent-encumbered standard by my book, just as long as we don't mistake it for an open standard like the ones talked about in this article. And just as long as we keep in mind that wmv isn't a 'killer format' everyone needs, just one that is really popular because it is on all windows systems by default. Same with OpenXML.
Here's a nice irony, the way it goes, Microsoft may actually end up PAYING more for WMV lisences in future than gaining from them. The royalty fee is predetermined, but how it is split for parties owning the IP isn't, so by joining the standard patent pool companies get access to royalty stream. Provided their IP was accepted by patent body as legimate patent claim on WMV. And the current situatiation is that WMV10 has atleast 12 other companies besides Microsoft.
This is also very interesting, but it doesn't make the pushing of wmv less illegal. Other companies pushing their own formats (quicktime, real) are also losing because wmv is automatically popular, even if it is not the best format for the job. One could argue that the benefits microsoft is reaping from pushing wmv as a standard, is well accounted for even if microsoft gets nothing out of it economically.
We are in the middle of a format war. Open Standards (as in patent-free, royality-free) are the standards that will foster growth and business oportunities for all. If wmv was such a standard, I would be behind it. Until then, I prefer to want a standard that would give me the same chance as microsoft has to develop something novell and make a living out of it.
You can indeed make a GPL application that will play WMV files. You can use DirectShow to access all the installed codecs in a Windows environment. The decoder is already there, you're just using it.
Yes, if you utilize the decoder that ships with windows. The licensing cost of the decoder is integrated in the windows license. If I'm developing a windows only app, I'm ok. But what happens when I want to port the application to linux or any non microsoft OS? I'll have to make use of patented technology. Not a problem if i'm willing to pay the fee. But how is that 'open'?
Let alone the wmv format is popular because of it being tied with windows. That being said, it is a good format IMHO. But the lack of choice, I believe, is obvious...
From the same article:
There is little really universal agreement about the usage of either of the terms "open" or "standard". Some people restrict their use of the term "open" to royalty-free technologies, while others do not; and some people restrict their use of the term "standard" to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis, while others do not.
I'm with the people who attribute open to the full extent of the word. Jocknerd was more to the point that a concrete defenition of the word should be accepted. So we can argue on something more meaningful than how we use words.
Anyway, a standard encumbered with patents and royalities defeats some of the purposes of a true open standard in the first place. One being that you do not have a true leveled field of competition. Two, you need the permition of the one holding the patent to develop an application that utilizes it. It is in microsoft's power to not grant permition to legally use its IP. Or to permit it at a high price that would effectively kill the competition. Look at microsoft's acquired patents on OpenGL and the fears being expressed. Third, why should free applications be excluded from competing? Why should I the consumer have to pay for something when my job can be done the way I want it to with a free (OSS, CSS, doesn't matter) application? This is why we need to emphasize that by saying open standard, we mean truly Free.
The case with wmv is more evil than it not being an open standard though. It is illegally pushed by microsoft, by tying it to windows. Automatically their patent-encumbered standard becomes popular because you can count on it being on 90% of PCs. It's leveraging a monopoly if I ever saw one. But this is a discussion for another thread...
wmv is open standard . Microsoft has submitted it to standards body inorder to get it as one of the codecs in Blue Ray disc standard, and HD-Disc standard.
It is A standard. Not an open one with the full meaning of the word open. Can I make a GPL application that will legally play wmv files? Can I make a closed source freeware application that can play wmv files without paying a royality to microsoft? I would happily admit I am wrong if you provide me links to the opposite...
HTML, TCP/IP, GSM, PCI , XMPP ( jabber, google talk ).. etc. etc.
We use Open standards very much in our everyday life dont we?
Word, ppt, excel, smb, quicken, asf, wmv
Even more interesting: compare which of the above said standards actually fostered growth in technology and paved new ways of doing business:
The first set brought everyone the web, the internet, mobile phones, a plethora of choices for expansion cards, etc... all going down price-wise. Alot of opportunities of doing business also.
The second ones, well... made us have to pick certain platforms/vendors to be relevant... I don't know about everyone else, but over here the price of windows or Office is not going down! Magic food indeed.
Fanboy is a Ferocious, Abhorrant Nutball, Bringer of Obscurity and Yearning god, everyone knows that.
:)
I AM NOT!
I'm telling....
I don't think so. Alot of goverments around the world are not using windows. Most are US allies. If Microsoft were to bring up such a point, it would quickly lose ground because it has no logical base to build upon. The only thing it could bring (with a push from mass media of course) is a general emotion that linux is somehow evil. Even that isn't a probability, because I don't think corporations that have interests in linux, like IBM, would just sit around for that to happen...
Apple will go down windows' rathole more or less. Not today or tommorow though.
The way I see it, Steve is gonna wait to see how the mac sells after Vista is launched. When the first enthusiasm of a triple boot system (or virtualization) calms down and sales eventually stabilize to a percent, he will then license the DRM technology that essentially makes a modern mactel what it is, to vendors. To be 'Mac certified' and therefor be granted the 'Apple logo', the vendors will need to provide 100% compatible hardware so apple won't need to fuss about driver support. If this works out and mac sales raise even further, believe it, Hardware Vendors will be striving for a 'mac sticker' and Hardware components will be jumping over backwards to be Mac compatible. The Mac enthusiasts will still buy only 'the original mac', but at the same time Steve cashes in on ordinary PC sales. So does Intel. As you say, this is probably why 'the iwork crew is hard at work on replacing every part of MS Office with an app that stands head and shoulders above its counterpart, just as Keynote does', because microsoft won't like it one bit and eventually stop MS Office support.
So I believe we will be seeing a 'battle of the stickers' in the future.
Just my wild take at what might play out...
:) I completely overlooked the last line of his post. I thought it was part of the sig and skipped it... I must have been lacking caffeine at that time. Sorry for posting something that looked like a spelling nazi to GP, I was actually aiming to say the same thing he did! By the way, my spelling is terrible...
I don't get it. Why is adding to a standard bad, if it isn't done in a proper manner? Why the changes in HTML then? I like the microsoft employee's reasoning more. You need a 'defined change control process', not total staticness. If ODF currently has such a process (which I don't have knowledge of if they do, or do not, but I'll find it surprising if they don't), I don't see why it is so hard to add a 'save as ODF' option in Office. Office should only be required to add ODF support to the extent the standard supports features Office has to offer. If ODF doesn't support italics, MS isn't required to make it work. The end user can pick Open XML for his documents and pick ODF when he needs the portability or the openness. So there would be no case of 'having a reader which will not render something in italics when it is required to'. Anything that is, say, an ODF 1.0 document should open properly in any app that supports ODF 1.0. The problem for microsoft would be if this standard was to be 'added to' often and not in a timely/controlled manner...
.doc does?
;)
Should CSS not be further reviewed because some browsers don't support newer versions fully? Should RTF support in Word be outcasted because it doesn't display all the features open XML will or
As long as features are added, THE standard will never exist...
I am not sure. I can't speak for the office team (or any team, for that matter ;)), and if I was one of the people that could, I am not sure how much legal whitewashing my answer would need :)
;)
;)
That's ok, I'm not trying to get you in trouble!
Good points by the way.
A 180 degree turn towards ODF would be kind of awkward at this point.
I don't think the government bodies are asking for a 180 degree turn of microsoft's direction. As I see it, they only need a 'save as' option that will work with office. Open XML could still lead the way features-wise until these features can be standardized so they can be embedded in the ODF format. Since the two file formats are esentially XML, I'm guessing it won't be a very painfull process, but I don't know the specifics.
I wonder if the Office XML formats will satisfy the governments that are interested in this type of legislation.
I think the problem is the patents on the formats that are in the way. If a company sues MS over patent infringement, they automatically lose the right to use these formats. This gives MS an unfair advantage over competition I guess. It is in the governments' interests to have viable alternatives, so aside the lobbying powers, I think ODF is the best way to go. Even if some features will not be present immediantly, long term MS and competitors will be 'fighting' on terms of merits and not formats.
I would be curious to know what people consider truly open file formats
I'm a linux user. Saying that, I find MS Office to be 'the best choice for their situation' in alot of cases as you say, let alone the interoperating problem I have when sending a windows user a document that needs features RTF can't support. I know asking for a port of Office to linux is a bit farfetched, but I believe a sufficient standard supported well by Office and any other competitor would be just enough to trigger healthy competition. Sadly, Open XML is not 'GPL compatible' and can be used against OS projects in the future. But I'm guessing that even if, say, Corel wanted to port wordperfect to linux, they would be in the same acquard position of losing 'patent power' over microsoft if they were to innovate under the current patent laws.
I outlined some of my requirements in my original posting. To be realistically useful, you need more than just openness.. you also need a defined change control process, some sort of "owning body" etc. Fragmentation in the file format space makes everybody lose.
This is what Oasis is for. Fragmenation won't be that much a problem, as the versioning sytem you pointed out. I admit that I don't have information on this myself, so I can't argue on how big a problem that could be also.
Bottom line, what I want from microsoft is to just play fair and as you say, win on technical merits and not on patents and FUD or leveraging monopolies and what not. I know for sure that innovation is not a microsoft only thing, I see it daily in opensource projects. This is why I believe the management is the problem over there at Redmond and not the developers. Don't comment on the last remark...
A Sisyphusean task is probably what you are looking for...
Sinner condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again.
I can understand what you are saying. But also, this means that MS will be disqualified from the government contracts they want in these two states right? After all, they are asking for open standards. What I'm saying is, ok, microsoft isn't prioritizing on supporting ODF. It's their call. But, why the big fuss over these two states then? I don't know the exact economic impact a loss in these contracts would have on MS, but how does such a loss weigh in when comparing it to the 'fuss' of supporting ODF? How much demand will it take for support of ODF to be a priority?
... a format which will never be able to fully capture the structure of a document the same way the proprietary formats currently used do.
Why will they never be able to fully capture the structure of a document the same way the proprietary formats currently used do? I can understand a claim that ODF doesn't _currently_ support some features Word has, but not that it won't in the future. It is an extendable format. This is a good point someone could point out if I were to ask: 'Why doesn't microsoft use ODF as their default format', which I am not. What I am asking is 'why doesn't microsoft support ODF as it supports wordperfect, or RTF?'. In other words, to the extent the standard allows features of, say, Word to be embedded in it. Still, I get the point of the cost effectiveness of such an effort. Was the cost of losing business in these two states acounted for? Because I find it weird they portray their non-open format as an open one just to not lose their contracts there if it was... I believe it is more a matter of control of formats than it is a matter of resources. After all, they are the biggest software company in the world with billions in assets. Hiring a few more developers to support ODF can't be that much a problem...
Fist off: I agree with you totally. It's a sad way the world works, lobbying and all. Not only IBM or Sun, but MS also. Just look at the pro-software patents camp here in Europe.
:(
Anyway, the question: Why doesn't Microsoft just support ODF? It's in their interest, just as supporting wordperfect's formats were. I'm confident they have the manpower to compete on open standards and remain the market leader for a long time ahead, as much as I personally don't support them. It's a simple solution to a simple 'problem' these states brought up. They would most likely win any government contract either way, because they have 'better legacy support' for the doc format and they have the advantage of not having to make the government retrain existing users, or to have citizens buy or download another office suite. It would also be a tremendous PR boost, even if some of us would be careful in embracing microsoft again. The only good reason I can think of is MS's vendor lockin. Which is really sad in the same way lobbying is. IMHO, with the assets MS has, and with the bragging about innovation they do, they should be the first to embrace open standards to "Show people who the boss is". Today they just think and work the way a 'small player' would... It's embarrassing for a company their size...
Yeah, mine also... >:(
I'm suing....
Not until I buy a new PC. Unlike with Windows XP (NT 5.1), which was targeted at the same hardware profile as Windows 2000 (NT 5.0), Microsoft is making it clear that only a new PC will run Windows Vista properly. Linux live CDs project the opposite image, that Linux can be "switched" to.
;)
So, to upgrade to Vista, you have to buy a new PC, wheras to switch to linux you just need to buy a new scanner? Cool.
I personally had the same problem a while back with my HP deskjet 710. I waited a bit and they built support for it. I could have just gone out to buy a real printer, but I didn't really print much at that time... Since then, I have never encountered unsupported hardware again. But I won't rule out some people might experience this.
I've tried. The answer will almost universally be "Never heard of it" or some other form of "I don't know".
Yeah, places like these work with what is asked for more. If a thousand people ask about linux and they "don't know", they'll eventually do something about it. Til then, keep on asking.
Which requires at least two trips to the store, double the bus fare that one would have paid when sticking with the version of Windows included with a PC. Understand how penny-wise-pound-foolish novice computers are.
Well not really. If before hand you make a list of linux compatible, say gpu's, and the go to walmart, it's one less bus fare! but, I'll give you this: linux friendly products do not announce this on the wrapper as they do for windows. This is the barrier linux has to overcome to gain marketshare. But, for someone determined to have a linux system, these extra steps are trivial to say the least. A grandma-type won't be shopping for computer components OTOH, but for full linux-supported sytems. Say Dell...
There's a difference. The companies that set up Windows on new home PCs advertise nationally; the companies that do so with Linux don't.
Yeah, that's true. Linux relies more on the grandson to get grandma involved with linux. Customer experience though is on linux's side. I've had alot of grandma-types ask me for a CD of linux once they saw me in action on this old laptop. Once I tell them there is no way you can catch a dialer with linux, no way you can browse shady sites and have popups haunt you, now reason to go on a wild codec hunt to play a video you downloaded, they are asking how they can ditch windows alltogether...
Which distribution do you recommend that does this?
Any modern distribution that uses a modern packet manager can do this. Stick with the "beginner distros", mandriva, ubuntu, even SuSE if you want a near windows experience. But what you are doing wrong is that you are looking for a windows rip-off. Linux is not one. It's a whole new OS with different ways of doing things. Once you give yourself some time to learn how it works, returning to windows will be a pain. Some stuff that annoy me in windows now: Constant dialog boxes/balloons, lack of Shading windows (roll them up to only a title bar), lack of multiple desktops (well to be fair windows has this with an extra download), lack of one click installs/upgrades. It's a whole new world and quiet frankly I've been looking around for programs that build this functionality in windows. I've found win-get on sourceforge, pretty cool and today I found Google pack. I'll have to try that out when I decide to boot back to windows. Believe me: Just as you want linux to be as user friendly as windows, I want windows to be as user friendly as linux... And I'm not kidding here.
Which is a problem for grandmas who use Ubuntu or the like. All versions of Windows, on the other hand, respond to the same "D:\setup.exe"
You give people less credit than they deserve. Any Grandma that can find out how to install, say, corel draw with it's double serial numbers can surely point to a differant directory on the CD for her specific linux-distro repository. Keep in mind the commercial user-friendly distro's are a small few of the whole number of distros. They can be easily supported by a proprietary vendor if it decides to offer products. What you are doing is limiting the way linux can get proprietary or free software to walmart, and building on that fact as it was universal. Most people I know, even windows users, buy software online more than they do Walmart, because it is more conveniant. Linux installs are: point to repository (online or offline) select package, install. That's it.
"OMG!!!Ponies!!!"? CoyboyNeal, am I missing something? :)