"Microsoft dropped a bomb on ODF with its Ecma announcement. Today, it just bombed with the release of its promised 'covenant not to sue,' which it publicly posted just a few minutes ago. I was able to get an advance copy and do a line-by-line legal analysis, as well as a direct comparison to the covenant Sun gave to OASIS in support of ODF. There's no comparison."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-10-02
It seems to be much clearer everyday that MS is pretending.
All the doublespeak and wobblelygook make it clear that MS has no intentions about creating an open standard.
They just want to make it appear open, so they can trick authorities to use proprietary standards and thereby force citizens to be locked in to Microsoft.
Member since:2005-07-06
It seems to be much clearer everyday that MS is pretending.
Of course they're pretending. They've been doing this for years and years.Get something seen as an open standard (probably why they bang on about it so much) when in reality no one can implement said standard apart from Microsoft. Go back to square one.
Member since:
2005-08-26
The author of the article have several times shown his clear bias against MicroSoft.
He picks on things that are irrelevant, for the sole purpose of putting MicroSoft in a bad light.
In other words, he can't be trusted to make a fair judgment of anything related to MicroSoft.
He's a troll, and it's getting really tiresome to see his badly founded opinions getting spammed on OSNews.
Member since:2005-06-29
Of course he's biased-- given his position. But the thing is, basically everyone in this industry working for a company is. We can't simply just ignore them. It is YOUR job as a reader of the media to define and localize these biases and act accordingly. I mean, I might as well stop linking to product websites, Bill Gates interviews, etc. They're all biased!
Like, there's no shame in watching FoxNews (actually, they're quite funny)-- you just gotta realize they are biased. Then it's all fine.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-18
"He's a troll, and it's getting really tiresome to see his badly founded opinions getting spammed on OSNews."
Yeah, what does he know about law, he's just a lawyer.
We should all just listen to the extensive legal expertise of the osnews forum participants instead.
Edited 2005-11-25 08:45
Member since:
---
Gawd. Did anyone read that in its entirety?
A note to Andy Updegrove: Is a standard published? Yes or no. Does that standard have any IP issues? Yes or no. Do those IP issues restrict usage of the standard? Yes or no. Who has ultimate control of the standard? Closed or open. How is that standard going to be managed? Self-serving or comunity sensitive. Leave the ten pages of fine print till after. If I'm interested I can read it later.
A note to Microsoft: Like a lot of companies, you're swimming in a legal mess, created for lawyers, by lawyers, and there's plenty of managers, PR people, and accountants who love to hide in the detail, as much as they hide within your own company policies. Simplifying your explanations and legal reference documents is a good way to cut out legal confusion and cost, and increase customer satisfaction and trust.
Member since:
---
Of course he's biased-- given his position. But the thing is, basically everyone in this industry working for a company is. We can't simply just ignore them. It is YOUR job as a reader of the media to define and localize these biases and act accordingly. I mean, I might as well stop linking to product websites, Bill Gates interviews, etc. They're all biased!
This smacks a little of the "it's inevitable so why fight it" routine. Do you want to be a cut and paste conduit of propoganda, or do you want to play a more responsible and useful role? It's YOUR job to define editorial policy. You do have one? Nope. Can't find it.
One thing I've noticed about you, Thom, is you're big on facts and responsibility, and only match this with your inability to put yourself in the shoes of the reader, and constantly shift responsibility away from yourself. OS News lack of understanding and accomodating its readership is abuse, and something you should be ashamed of, if you had any consideration. Get a grip.
Member since:2005-06-29
His point is it's the same thing people have been telling you for years when you cry bias:
It doesn't matter! It's not statistical, it's not research, and if he includes all the facts it's not a big deal what his commentary is.
Complain about unreported details, not over-emphasis.
Bias is expected, and if I didn't see it I'd be complaining about all the wet-noodle journalism.
RE: I Can't Live With You
Member since:
---
I notice that the licence is only applicable to "conforming parts of software products":
Microsoft ... will not ... enforce ... patent claims ... against ... conforming parts of software products.
(legal speak omitted)
This could be a problem because software often has bugs. What's the chance that any programme implementing the standard (including MS products) will not have a bug come up at some stage in some version of the software? Then they will be open to litigation.
The litigation can only involve the parts of the software that are not conforming, but I'm not sure that it would always be easy to seperate out some parts of software as conforming when there was an issue with conformance of the software as a whole.
I think Macromedia Flash and Sun Java might have similar clauses (can anyone clarify this?), and I'm not aware of it having been an issue yet. But I think it is more of a concern here, since Microsoft would have financial motivation to eliminate some of the others that might want its XML format, whereas I think Macromedia and Sun would generally have less motiviation to do this.
Is GPL software a product BTW?
Member since:---
Actually, come to think of it, the wording of the restriction to "conforming parts of software products" is a problem to the development phase of any software -- while the software's in development and not yet conforming it's open to litigation. And it's a particular problem to the open source development model, since code is freely available while in development.
Not intentional perhaps, but in need of rewording.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
Adobe uses similar language:
Accordingly, the following patents are licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for the term of each patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and interprets PDF files that are compliant with the Specification:
...
In addition, the following patent is licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for its term and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces PDF files that are compliant with the Specification (specifically excluding, however, software that consumes and/or interprets PDF files):
...
The above licenses are limited to only those rights required to implement the Specification and no others.
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/support/topic_legal_noti...
Edited 2005-11-23 23:28
Member since:---
Adobe uses similar language:
Accordingly, the following patents are licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for the term of each patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and interprets PDF files that are compliant with the Specification:
I wasn't aware that Abobe did this too, and I think it is a bit of a worry. Any idea if this applies to all PDF versions? (I would love to know.) With Macromedia, I think Flash 3's SWF specification is completely open, but later versions have this kind of restriction.
At least the Adobe license allows the software to be developed though. According to the MS license, software must be compliant from the moment development begins (which is of course impossible). :-P MS at least needs to adopt something like Adobe's "for the sole purpose of developing software" to allow software development!
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
Hmmm. 
In this document:
http://www.aiim.org/documents/standards/pdf-a2003-001_dec_min.pdf
The bottom 3 paragraphs of page 3 seem to suggest (I think) that PDF/X at least is a fully open standard.
(I just did a quick Google search for "PDF/X" and "patents".)
Member since:2005-07-06
Even in the case of PDF/X, it appears that Adobe only released patent and copyright with regards to implementing the PDF/X spec. The can still go after non-compliant implementations. PDF/X is a subset of PDF and uses the PDF specs, which is why the group needed to get releases from Adobe.
Edited 2005-11-24 17:30
Member since:
2005-07-08
I don't get the deal on people complaining about Andy's blog being biaised. And Microsoft isn't? What about their "Get the facts" campaigns? FUD? Lies? Outright lies? If someone spots problems with a particular thing, does that really mean that they're biaised, or just eagle eyed?
As to the posts that have been modded down to -5, where they modded down to -5 by osnews.com staff, or by other osnews.com readers? I'm curious. If they were modded down by staff, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's an abuse of authority. Thom - making threats to your readers is not going to endear you to them, nor will it be a good promotion of osnews.com. It's a pretty disgraceful thing actually. Just my very honest 2c worth.
Dave
Member since:2005-10-02
Actually they got modded down because they were getting very off-topic. Some of my replys got hit as well, with my full blessing (not that it was necessary).
Thom is doing exactly what people could expect from him. Same thing I sometimes have to do at the sites where I'm the moderator.
Being a moderator isn't that easy.
Member since:
---
