Patent Threats In OOXML 109
An anonymous reader notes an initiative by the New Zealand Open Source Society to weigh in on the question of standardizing Microsoft's OOXML. The organization has authored a white paper (available in several formats, HTML here) laying out the ways in which the OOXML spec falls short of what a standard should be. From the article: "'If OOXML goes through as an ISO standard, the IT industry, government and business will [be] encumbered with a 6,000-page specification peppered with potential patent liabilities' said New Zealand OSS President Don Christie. 'Alarm bells are going off in many parts of the world over OOXML. Normally ISO draft standards would be drawn up by a number of stakeholder organizations, involving an often slow process of consensus building and knowledge sharing. Since many aspects of the office document format remain proprietary, OOXML has not taken this development track.'"
Re:Open standards often are patented (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly the ISO bodies are being corrupted (packed) by MS and I really don't understand why. MS has never obeyed any standard and they will not obey this one either. Why does ISO even pretend that MS has respect for standards? Why do would they ratify a standard which will immediately be extended by MS?
Re:There can be only one (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open standards often are patented (Score:5, Insightful)
"Auto space like Word 95" (Score:5, Insightful)
'Nuff said.
The existence of shit like that in the spec -- not to mention the obsolete HTML export described in the post below yours [slashdot.org] -- indicate that the OOXML architecture is just as shoddy as the grandparent post asserts!
In other words, he's right and you're trolling, so STFU and HAND.
Re:Open standards often are patented (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, obviously Microsoft doesn't care about standards itself. However, others do, and Microsoft wants to abuse that fact. Understand now?
Oh, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even Microsoft believes in the technical merit of their own spec, which is why they are resorting to their usual underhanded and corrupt tactics.
Re:Why am I not surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Start a new company
2. Patent something
3. License patent to big company
The nice thing about standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft XML standard compliance would be just as useful as their POSIX compliance.
Re:Open standards often are patented (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting back on topic. I think the following from the conclusion of the article says it all: "While Microsoft has granted patent use over the required portions of the specification that are described in detail the numerous undisclosed behaviours and inexplicit definitions are not covered, providing a legal as well as technical barrier to OOXML's implementation". I think we can quite easily arrive at the conclusion that to adopt OOXML is to adopt something that cannot easily be implemented by a third party, so we can assume this is a proprietary format that is dressed up to look like it is an open format.
Re:Not all standards are equal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not all standards are equal (Score:2, Insightful)
Misnomer: Open Standards are often patented .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Correctly stated it is simply a standard, not "OPEN".
If you want to use a two word phrase, then the correct phrase for a few decades now has been and still is an "Industry Standard".
An "Industry Standard" is sometimes called an ANSI, ISO
By accepted technologist and L/FOSS convention dating back to the 1980's the usage of the term "OPEN" is conceptually reserved to products/ideas... that closely follow the "Public Property" [GPL, "Open Content", "Open Standards"
Just like a public park, which is always paid for by the public or philanthropic individuals/foundations, the property is provided and developed for the public welfare. Software patents and industry standards are an obvious attempt by corporatist and their governments to prevent access [easement] to public property that could/would limit the private property's owners attempts to control public property use by citizens.
I know you see my direction of debate/argument, the word "Open" when capitalized or in all caps (like an acronym) should have as much legal standing as the term "Microsoft", "California", "Navajo" "The United States" "Organic"
Revisionist-spin is never reality, but can be dogma for fools and "Exploiticians" to use for legal rights to the wind, they may even stupidly try to hold the wind for themselves.
Re:Open standards often are patented (Score:3, Insightful)
OpenDocument format is already an ISO standard and has been since last year.
I think OOXML has already achieved Microsoft objective of creating confusion and doubt in the marketplace. ISO should swiftly reject OOXML to help eliminate that doubt.
Why would they say that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that Sun's ODF plug-in [sun.com] for MS Word does exactly that (simply adds ODF to the list of supported formats everywhere they occur in Word, including allowing it to be set as the default), it makes me wonder why Microsoft would say that.
Oh come now... (Score:3, Insightful)
I call prior art!
"The best thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from" (unknown, but ancient attribution)