Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Windows The Verge has a learned a few interesting things about Google deprecating EAS and how this will affect Windows Phone users. As it turns out, Google informed Microsoft it was planning to remove EAS in the summer of last year, but without giving a firm date. Microsoft has been trying to get a six-month extension from Google, but so far with no luck. In the meantime, Microsoft is also working on adding CardDAV and CalDAV support to Windows Phone - so yay open standards.
Thread beginning with comment 549798
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't think its a fair definition. I am perfectly fine with calling wireless standards open standards.

They place no undue burden on the implementers and the licensing rates are reasonable. Do you agree?

I am much more in line with the IETF's definition.

Reply Parent Score: 2

sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

I don't think its a fair definition. I am perfectly fine with calling wireless standards open standards.

They place no undue burden on the implementers and the licensing rates are reasonable. Do you agree?

I am much more in line with the IETF's definition.


I'm glad you mentioned the IETF. From BCP (Best Common Practice) 9:

10.3.1. All Contributions

By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the
contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions
on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he
represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the
contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in
addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the
actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was
made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on
his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and
any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.

l. Some works (e.g. works of the U.S. Government) are not subject to
copyright. However, to the extent that the submission is or may
be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he
represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in
the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive,
royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the
IETF under any copyrights in the contribution.
This license
includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the
contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are
based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the
license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the
license of the original contribution.


Not exactly FRAND terms, are they?

Reply Parent Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

How would that explain:
http://www.ietf.org/ipr/ ? IP disclosures there seem to include FRAND.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I have no clue what "fairness" has to do with this. Nowhere does Microsoft claim EAS to be an "open standard." Furthermore, I pointed out the definition for "open standards" for Microsoft as an organization. You seem to be under the impression that "documented" and "open" are the same, which is not necessarily the case.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I merely pointed out that I disagreed with the assessment. I don't think Microsoft and I are the same entity, so we are allowed to have differing opinions.

Furthermore, I think the situation is a lot more gray than you're letting out.

What if the patent is royalty free but not runs afoul of other principals like duration of the license, location where the license is applicable, and transferability of such a license?

It is my (*my*, not Microsoft's) firm belief that EAS is for all intents and purposes open, because there is no undue burden placed on the implementers to pay royalties. They are not astronomical amounts of money, and Google likely got a very sweet volume licensing deal anyway. Its just the way the industry works.

But to exclude all standards which are royalty bearing from being "open" standards, leaves you with a very subset of true open standards, and I think would surprise a few people here with the impact.

I think of royalties as a good thing (so long as they're not astronomical, and if not FRAND, then FRAND-ish) because it makes it economically attractive to disclose patents to the standard process. The alternative being patent aggression after a standard is ratified and implemented.

I think I'll reiterate again, that these are my own personal views. I replied to your original comment out of an abundance of generosity, because it was largely besides my point.

Reply Parent Score: 2