“If seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work. Maybe there is no way Io avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we can define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this.”
Amazing it might seem how frequently Microsoft can lie about this. The company systematically denies the software patent risk, which is an inherent component of OOXML. For those naive enough to take Microsoft’s word (or Word), the ODF Alliance has compiled a document that explains this properly. [PDF] [via Bob Sutor]
Microsoft has a patent promise, the Open Specification Promise (OSP) and a Covenant Not to Sue, relating to OOXML. If you want to implement OOXML with confidence that you are not infringing on any intellectual property rights (IPR), these coverages are not adequate. They have gaps.
Rob Weir uses some sarcasm to get across the point that software patents are used as an obstacle to interoperability.
So, if anyone shows you interoperability, ask yourself whether both sides of the interaction actually fully understand the data that is being exchanged. If not, this is not really full interoperability. It is just an illusion.
This post is also good for a quick laugh, especially the ELIZA portions of the text.
The key question here can be foreseen. Is there any precedece where lawsuits are launched to defend a widely deployed protocol, so-called ‘standard’ (de facto or otherwise) or format? Well, who needs a search for precedence when there is news available that was published just hours ago in Reuters. Watch what Motorola says in its defense (Motorola uses GNU/Linux extensively by the way):
Research In Motion sues Motorola over patents
In addition, RIM alleges that Motorola “is demanding exorbitant royalties…for patents that Motorola claims are essential to various standards for mobile wireless telecommunications and wireless computing that RIM practices.”
“OOXML is patents. Yes, patents are in OOXML. Don’t let anybody fool you.”Read that statement again if you haven’t and think about OOXML while you read it. RIM, mind you, is not a struggling company. It does not beg for money to protect its short- or long-term survival (think about SCO). Rather, it fights to maintain dominance and it uses patents covering “standards” to achieve this goal of ‘taxing’ its competitor out of relevance (Motorola is the stagnating business here, still wrestling with plenty of ongoing reorgs and staff reductions).
It was quite recently that Microsoft admitted it needs to control (and protect using patents) the ‘standard’ in order for its business to remain relevant. There are many antitrust documents that back this long-enduring attitude. It’s time to break the ice — for good. OOXML is patents. Yes, patents are in OOXML. Don’t let anybody fool you. █
A new article has just emerged bearing the optimistic headline “Microsoft confident leading up to OOXML BRM,” but it’s not too clear if the headline should have been something like “Microsoft confident it has brainwashed the press” or “Microsoft confident it has stacked enough panels” or “Microsoft confident enough small countries were rewarded to vote “Yes” to OOXML”… you get the point, right?
Although the article states that Microsoft’s (and ECMA’s) hand are dirty, according to some, it is not truly balanced and it could use a few quick insertions and corrections. For example, it states:
In September’s vote, 53 per cent approved OOXML, well short of the two-thirds majority required, while 18 voted against OOXML, pushing it just over the maximum allowed no vote ratio.
it should be important to add that only a few days before the voting deadline was reached, there was a huge surge in terms of the number of countries hopping right inside queue to vote. Unsurprisingly, virtually all of them who emerged at the 90th minute were small nations which blindly said “Yes” to OOXML. Did they critically read 6,000+ pages overnight? Why did they all vote “Yes”? Coincidence? Not quite so according to those who published their findings back in September 2007.
Further, from the same article (there are too many bits which are worth criticising):
Thomas was unable to comment on what Microsoft is expecting those countries that abstained or voted no will do after the BRM. But he did comment on the concerns of Australia and New Zealand’s standards bodies, who abstained and voted no respectively, saying both had done “an incredible amount of hard work” to make sure their concerns were represented in the specification.
Thomas talks about “an incredible amount of hard work,” but as we have already seen, the vast majority of the comments were disregarded using excuses or were never addressed at all.
When Thomas talks about “an incredible amount of hard work” he might mean to say that Microsoft did a lot of work stacking the panels. This includes sending an Australian 'expert' (a paid Microsoft editor of Wikipedia) to pro-OOXML trips around the world. Then, Microsoft also saw him assigned to participate in BRM where Australia is to be represented. They even call him “devil’s advocate”.
One has to wonder if he recommended a “No” back in September simply so that in the subsequent theatrical act he can earn the “evil’s advocate” role. Look again at "Evangelism is War" and remind yourself of the art of ensuring a person who is to serve Microsoft’s interest must not seem too close to the company a priori. Classic? Far fetched? You decide. █
We have sent some text over to Groklaw which transformed the Evangelism is War antitrust exhibit into plain text. Here is the summary of this text, which generates a lot of discussion at the moment.
In the section of an internal manual on effective evangelism, written in 1997 by James Plamondon, Technical Evangelist, he lays out an elaborate series of steps to get Microsoft’s platforms accepted as de facto standards. Among the steps lists are working behind the scenes with supposedly independent but actually pliable and supportive analysts and consultants.
This full text will gain a high level of visibility. The Slashdot crowd is possibly on its way. Microsoft’s binary soup will have some frogs leaping out of it just days ahead of the BRM’s opening. Thanks to Slated for extracting text of interest from the document. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA