Comments on: Office Open XML (OOXML): Software Patents, Briberies, Binaries, O/S-dependent Bits http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 03 Jan 2017 04:31:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.14 By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-2/#comment-4802 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:56:03 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4802 Jeffrey, Have a look at http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html . Your arguments about patents are very easy to disagree with, using concrete proof. Bear in mind that Microsoft has a history of saber-rattling, even against OpenOffice.org users just 7-8 months ago. Steering away from .doc/.docx is therefore the best way to go.

]]> By: Jeffrey http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-2/#comment-4801 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:16:30 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4801 Weirdly enough a lot of these patents could also apply to ODF and Microsoft can indeed use them against ODF implementations but not against OOXML implementations because of their reuirement to give up IP rights on standardising the format.
So actually the patent rights of MS on XML based Office documents are far more dangerous when used against ODF implementations.
Escpecially if OOXML beocmes an ISO standard there is little MS can do on OOXML with their patents. Existing standards case law shows that it is virtually impossible to claim IP rights on standards if the organisation was involved in the standardisation proces and did not invoke those rights at that time. So by putting OOXML up for ISO standardization and stating to give up IP rights via the OSP will give OOXML implementers a near rock solid confidence that the IP rights on the standard are free to be used no matter what.

As far as extending the standard with propriety extensions goes. Those might theoretically be subject to IP rights but this would be much more the case if Microsoft were to extend ODF. This because ODF would need more propriety extensions to fit MS needs and because non of their existing IP rights are given up for ODF implementations anyways.

Microsoft could easily extend ODF in such a way that OSS implementations would not be able to use it by for instance licensing the technology for free (for unfare competition requirement reasons) but in a way that is incompatible with GPL2 or GPL3.

Microsoft adapting ODF (and thus nescesarily extending it to hold their technologies) could actually kill the format for open use by others and full interoperability.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-2/#comment-4453 Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:43:25 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4453 Thanks,

I think I saw this comment some months ago. Other countries expressed similar concerns.

]]> By: Andre http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-2/#comment-4452 Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:37:07 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4452 http://www.dis29500.org/fi-0005/

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-2/#comment-4292 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:19:27 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4292 Heidegart,

About Red Hat patent, see Mark Webbink’s video interview here.

More broadly, about Linux patents, see this.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-1/#comment-4291 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:13:38 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4291 Sun Microsystems and IBM have patents as well, but they are unlikely to assert them (defensive action aside). On the contrary, watch how Microsoft has resorted to what a Sun executive called ‘patent terrorism’. Microsoft even threatened OOo users.

]]> By: Heidegart Millnic http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-1/#comment-4287 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:26:11 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4287 Did you know that Red Hat also files patents? That by itself does mean little.

]]> By: Mickey http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-1/#comment-4286 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:23:17 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4286 On what basis do these patents cover OOXML, but not ODF, given both are XML wordprocessing formats?

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-1/#comment-4267 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:07:25 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4267 Microsoft could (and almost definitely will) ‘extend’ that ECMA set of specifications and then issue patents relating to those extensions. It’s the same situation with Mono.

]]> By: Robert http://techrights.org/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/comment-page-1/#comment-4265 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:00:14 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/15/ooxml-binary-windows-only/#comment-4265 Yet despite Microsoft pledges, they continue filing patent applications related to XML. How can a company say they are “Opening” something, yet still pursue IP related to or for the purpose of extenting that “Opening”. In away, its negotiating in bad faith, and raises some doubt about thier sincerety: Here are some:

PCT/US2006/034974
PCT/US2007/001546
PCT/US2006/046464
PCT/US2006/043412
PCT/US2006/036362
PCT/US2006/021825

]]>