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 549810
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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:

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

tylerdurden Member since:

You said that EAS was both open and documented. I simply pointed you that it may be documented, but it is not open. Microsoft has not claimed it is open, specially when contrasted with the official definition that Microsoft employs for the term "open." I honestly fail to see what else is there to discuss regarding this matter.

Reply Parent Score: 3