Comments on: Competition Optional http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=competition-optional Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:20:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: zoobab http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-955 zoobab Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:40:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-955 Another point:<br/><br/>In this document, page8:<br/><br/>http://www.noooxml.org/local–files/arguments/ECMA-responses.pdf<br/><br/>ECMA mentions:<br/><br/>Pursuant to such Patent Declaration Form, Microsoft has provided assurances to ITTF that any such essential claims vis-à-vis DIS 29500 will be available for full or partial implementations under three different approaches (from which an implementer can select). These options include Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise (see http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), Microsoft’s Covenant http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102134631033.aspx) and a royalty-free Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) license.<br/><br/>Where can I get a copy of this RFRAND licence? Another point:

In this document, page8:

http://www.noooxml.org/local–files/arguments/ECMA-responses.pdf

ECMA mentions:

Pursuant to such Patent Declaration Form, Microsoft has provided assurances to ITTF that any such essential claims vis-à-vis DIS 29500 will be available for full or partial implementations under three different approaches (from which an implementer can select). These options include Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise (see http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), Microsoft’s Covenant http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102134631033.aspx) and a royalty-free Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (RAND) license.

Where can I get a copy of this RFRAND licence?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-950 Anonymous Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:48:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-950 Isn't it even worse than that, though? <br/>If the only thing the spec actually requires for conformance is that the app accept DOCX files without generating error messages, then perhaps that's the only feature of the spec that Microsoft's promise applies to. <br/>Under this interpretation, any app that implements the specification's optional (NOT required!) features (that is... all of them!) is not protected from Microsoft's patents. I think this was the point John was trying to make. Isn’t it even worse than that, though?
If the only thing the spec actually requires for conformance is that the app accept DOCX files without generating error messages, then perhaps that’s the only feature of the spec that Microsoft’s promise applies to.
Under this interpretation, any app that implements the specification’s optional (NOT required!) features (that is… all of them!) is not protected from Microsoft’s patents. I think this was the point John was trying to make.

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-948 Rob Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:59:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-948 Good point, John. The OSP only covers things that are "required" and "fully described." So optional items that are under-defined have two strikes against them. So even if you manage to reverse engineer MS Office's behavior, you are not covered by their covenant.<br/><br/>I just added a paragraph that makes this point. Good point, John. The OSP only covers things that are “required” and “fully described.” So optional items that are under-defined have two strikes against them. So even if you manage to reverse engineer MS Office’s behavior, you are not covered by their covenant.

I just added a paragraph that makes this point.

]]> By: John http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-946 John Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:44:00 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/competition-optional.html#comment-946 There is another point. MS's OSP (= Open Specification Promise - effectively its new Covenant not to Sue, see http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx) only covers those parts of OOXML which are "required". That would seem to mean that it is essentially ineffective for OOXML.<br/><br/>see http://doyoulovems.com/archives/61 There is another point. MS’s OSP (= Open Specification Promise – effectively its new Covenant not to Sue, see http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx) only covers those parts of OOXML which are “required”. That would seem to mean that it is essentially ineffective for OOXML.

see http://doyoulovems.com/archives/61

]]>