The infamous U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has slapped Microsoft with a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to CNET. This likely won't stop Microsoft Office from shipping, as CNET's Ina Fried writes, but the bigger question may be whether the lawsuit will reach beyond Redmond to also threaten the Open Document Format (ODF).
The lawsuit doesn't affect all of Microsoft Office, but only Word, and only the "Custom XML" functionality, as ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley highlights. Even so, you can almost hear the cries of jubilation from the open-source community, happy to see Microsoft get a taste of its own patent saber-rattling.
However, Gartner analyst Brian Prentice raises a troubling question: does the patent also affect the ODF standard?
The more I read through the patent claim the less confident I was with my initial reaction. In fact, I think this one might actually have some legs. Keep in mind is that this claim was filed back in 1994. The claim considers the existing state of the art at that time....
One thing seems clear to me - this is not a typical rubbish software patent that earns its filer a 20 year monopoly on the dead obvious. Fifteen years ago this would seem to me to have been an innovative idea....
But, if the validity of the patent is upheld then the immediate question is whether this will also impact ODF. If so, then this turns out to be a significantly more important issue and one which will crystallize the fury of the anti-patentistas. No longer will this be the source of some Schadenfreude at Microsoft's expense. This will be seen as yet another attack on open standards and open software.
It's an interesting question, one to which I don't know the answer, not having reviewed the patent in any detailed form. But it's at least a poignant reminder that the collateral damage in any patent infringement lawsuit could well extend beyond the initial target, in this case hitting the open-source world even as Microsoft is smacked around.
The current version of ODF doesn't include Custom XML-type code, as Redmond Magazine writes, but the next version will. Could this patent suit make momentary friends of Microsoft and the open-source community?
Anyone that can offer color commentary on the patent and ODF in particular?
Update: See Sean Michael Kerner's post, suggesting that two particulars (i4i is not a patent troll and i4i and Microsoft had a business relationship) suggest that the open-source world has little to fear from this suit.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
In an attempt to get its Office 2007 program on the desktops of U.K. youth, The Register reports that Microsoft is saying all the right things to the U.K. government in its attempt to placate the European Commission over interoperability with open file formats. Everything, that is, except how it intends to make its software more interoperable
Now Microsoft has stepped in to appease some of the education tech body's grumbles by announcing a new Open Licensing Programme (OLP) for government that will launch at the start of next month.
The company said the OLP offered "a new way for public sector organisations to purchase software from Microsoft resellers" who will sell MS products at a discounted rate.
However, while offering Microsoft products with a reduced price tag to the public sector might be viewed by some as a move in the right direction, the firm didn't reveal how Office 2007 might be made more interoperable with other doc formats.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" seems to be the strategy. Discounts are nice, but discounts only make it cheaper to fall into lock-in. The Open Source Consortium's president, Mark Taylor, says it well: "Schools can now choose between long-term software freedom or a short-term discount on the next lock-in play."
Fortunately, groups like Becta, which brought the original complaint against Microsoft to the European Commission, are unlikely to fall asleep at the wheel.
Microsoft will no doubt eventually be forced into offering interoperability alongside its discounts. As noted on InfoWorld, Microsoft has even made some strides toward a more peaceful future with open source, the kissing cousin to open standards.
It's just too bad that so much time must be wasted along the way.
Who's afraid of open formats like Open Document Format? Microsoft, for one. The company is locked in a furious lobbying battle with the Dutch government to block a proposal that would see the ODF format mandated to ensure that no single company owns its future. Imagine that. Macworld writes:
... Read moreProposed legislation that would mandate the use of the Open Document Format (ODF) across the entire Dutch government has infuriated Microsoft. A group promoting open standards sees no threat, however, and has invited Microsoft to join its ranks.
On Wednesday the Dutch parliament will discuss a plan to mandate use of the Open Document Format (ODF) at government agencies. The proposal is part of a wider plan to increase the sustainability of information and innovation, while lowering costs through the reuse of data.
Glyn Moody has written a lengthy, probing piece on the bust-up of the Open Document Format and its weird morphing into Compound Document Format, with a twist of Da Vinci. At the heart of the change? Microsoft Sharepoint.
While most of the open-source world sleeps, Microsoft is gearing up for a truly innovative take on its next-generation operating system. Sharepoint, not Windows, is the future of Microsoft's intended dominance.
This line of thinking probably explains the widespread incomprehension that greeted the [Open Document] Foundation's decision to abandon ODF. Supporters of the latter believe that it is by far the best document format, one that provides numerous benefits to users, notably freedom from lock-in. Hiser couldn't agree more: "We don't want OOXML to ever see the light of day, and certainly we feel deeply that it needs to be rejected by ISO finally and conclusively." But he adds:
... Read more
- prev
- 1
- next
