IPR, Trade Barriers and Open Document Formats: China Learns its Lessons Well
,----[ Quote ]
| While the total conversion potential was roughly equal in the case of both
| UOF/ODF and UOF/OOXML, conversions in either direction between UOF and ODF
| were found to be significantly easier to accomplish than with UOF and OOXML.
|
| [...]
|
| So what can be done? The most obvious way to avoid an unending series of
| standards wars – assuming that there is still time to do so – is for IT
| standards development organizations to try much harder to avoid the adoption
| of standard that require onerous financial and other licensing terms.
`----
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20071221130441431
For legal /and/ technical reason, ODF is far better than proprietary formats
like OOXML.
Related:
OOXML: Got the facts straight?
,----[ Quote ]
| Six public facts about Microsoft and standards as collected by Rui Seabra and
| a friend.
|
| [...]
|
| Fact 1: Bill Gates wanted to subvert ACPI so it would only work well with
| Windows, as it's documented on proof 3020 of “Comes vs Microsoft”:
|
| [...]
|
| Fact 2: Microsoft tried to sabotage the Java programming language,
| introducing in the market a product based on Java but with dependencies on
| its Windows platform.
|
| [...]
|
| Fact 3: Microsoft introduced proprietary extensions in HTML and aggressively
| induced its partners to use such extensions in order to monopolise internet
| browsing software (item 322, for instance):
|
| [...]
|
| Fact 4: Microsoft tries to exclude Free Softwares potential of
| competitiveness by making protocols proprietary (pg. 24 of PDF, 22 of the
| page numbering).
|
| [...]
|
| Fact 5: Microsoft was considered guilty of abusing its monopoly restricting
| interoperability information.
|
| [...]
|
| Fact 6: Microsoft didn't want to participate in ODF development (just like in
| Internet access, they understood the importance of standards late in the
| game) and only because of that it didn't oppose, at the time, its adoption as
| an ISO standard:
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-30775/ooxml:got-the-facts-straight
Microsoft patent promise not GPL compatible
,----[ Quote ]
| What Microsoft intends to do with its OSP is to forbid sublicensability,
| which is one of the cornerstone for distributing GPL code. The OSP page on
| Microsoft website is pretty clear about it: "There is no need for
| sublicensing".
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31551/microsoft-patent-promise-not-gpl-compatible
Digging in the Comments: Patents
,----[ Quote ]
| Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties
| that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the
| Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical
| and editorial issues would get resolved.
|
| [...]
|
| When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it,
| the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization
| process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the
| software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML
| infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license
| it.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31491/digging-in-the-comments:patents
Patent threat looms large over OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| "If OOXML goes through as an ISO standard, the IT industry, government and
| business will encumbered with a 6000-page specification peppered with
| potential patent liabilities" said NZOSS President Don Christie.
|
| "Patent threats have already been used to spread doubt amongst organisations
| keen to take advantage of the benefits of open source. No one knows whether
| such claims have any merit, but it is calculated to deter the development and
| use of open and alternative toolsets."
`----
http://nzoss.org.nz/node/179
Cyberlaw OOXML Seminar 14 December
,----[ Quote ]
| However, this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that
| such a large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims?
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The pedigree of the specification is certainly no reason for hope, Microsoft
| has been the target of third party patent claims for some time now including
| some high profile losses in patent suits. The fact that the specification has
| been developed behind closed doors and on a fast track means that there has
| been no adequate opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of third party patent
| claims against the specifications. The sheer size of the document suggests
| there will be at least a couple hiding in there somewhere.
`----
http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/
Corrupt countries were more likely to support the OOXML document format
,----[ Quote ]
| Is this just a random coincidence? The median of the CPI index of the above
| mentioned 70 countries is 3.95. Of the most corrupted half (CPI index less
| than 3.95) 23 or 77% voted for approval (approval or approval with comments)
| and 7 or 23% for disapproval; 5 abstained. Of the least corrupted half (CPI
| index more than 3.95) 13 or 54% voted for approval and 11 or 46% voted for
| disapproval; 11 abstained - see the table below.
`----
http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2007-09-05.en.html
Microsoft accused of more OOXML standards fiddling
,----[ Quote ]
| However the 11 new countries are refusing to say how they will vote. These
| include Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Ecuador, Jamaica, Lebanon, Malta, Pakistan,
| Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uruguay and Venezuela. Most people seem to think
| that these have been put there by Vole to make sure the standard gets pushed
| through.
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42106
|
|
