Comments on: Open XML and patents - Part 3 http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:54:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Do you love Microsoft? : Clarification from MS - and time to eat some humble pie? http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-62 Do you love Microsoft? : Clarification from MS - and time to eat some humble pie? Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:43:50 +0000 http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-62 [...] is whether the OSP actually covers all relevant patents. The doubt, which I raised yesterday and the day before, is whether it covers any patents needed for the many “optional” parts of the [...] […] is whether the OSP actually covers all relevant patents. The doubt, which I raised yesterday and the day before, is whether it covers any patents needed for the many “optional” parts of the […]

]]> By: Stephen McGibbon http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-58 Stephen McGibbon Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:42:47 +0000 http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-58 Microsoft has chosen to provide implementers with three different options from which they can choose. Some companies prefer to rely on a CNS or patent pledge. Some companies (sometimes that have a large commercial operation) prefer to enter into a bi-lateral license agreement as opposed to relying on a CNS or OSP-like promise. By offering all three choices, Microsoft has tried to accommodate the different preferences of different implementers that may be based in part on differing business models. Microsoft has chosen to provide implementers with three different options from which they can choose.
Some companies prefer to rely on a CNS or patent pledge.
Some companies (sometimes that have a large commercial operation) prefer to enter into a bi-lateral license agreement as opposed to relying on a CNS or OSP-like promise.
By offering all three choices, Microsoft has tried to accommodate the different preferences of different implementers that may be based in part on differing business models.

]]> By: John Scholes http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-53 John Scholes Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:30:14 +0000 http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-53 Short answer: I don't know. I don't even know if it exists yet. You are right, the Ecma response document Ecma/TC45/2007/006 does mention 3 possibilities on p8 lines 23-28 (near the end of 2.2): the OSP, the older covenant not to sue, and an unreferenced RAND. The covenant not to sue does not help much because it also has the wording "necessary to conform" to OpenXML. However, I doubt that the RAND will make any difference to the problem I have highlighted because if you read the lead-in in 2.2 of the response document it has "related to licensing of any of its essential patent claims that are necessary to implement [OpenXML]". Given the ITTF's track record in ignoring 12 NB's contradictions in the initial 30-day period, I do not find it particularly comforting that they have had discussions on patents with MS and Ecma (also mentioned in 2.2). Short answer: I don’t know. I don’t even know if it exists yet.

You are right, the Ecma response document Ecma/TC45/2007/006 does mention 3 possibilities on p8 lines 23-28 (near the end of 2.2): the OSP, the older covenant not to sue, and an unreferenced RAND.

The covenant not to sue does not help much because it also has the wording “necessary to conform” to OpenXML.

However, I doubt that the RAND will make any difference to the problem I have highlighted because if you read the lead-in in 2.2 of the response document it has “related to licensing of any of its essential patent claims that are necessary to implement [OpenXML]”.

Given the ITTF’s track record in ignoring 12 NB’s contradictions in the initial 30-day period, I do not find it particularly comforting that they have had discussions on patents with MS and Ecma (also mentioned in 2.2).

]]> By: Benjamin Henrion http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-52 Benjamin Henrion Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:37:36 +0000 http://doyoulovems.com/archives/64#comment-52 Yes, this is an urgency. 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? Yes, this is an urgency.

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?

]]>