decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 03:14 AM EST

The EU Commission would like to create a digital library. Microsoft has already pitched them on their XML, telling the Commission that they have sent their XML to ECMA with hopes of it becoming an ISO standard someday and they'd like to work with the Commission going forward.

I stumbled across the information when I found that the EU Commission has completed an online survey on issues related to its proposed digital library:

The European Commissions’ plan to promote digital access to Europe’s heritage is rapidly taking shape. At least six million books, documents and other cultural works will be made available to anyone with a Web connection through the European Digital Library over the next five years. In order to boost European digitisation efforts, the Commission will co-fund the creation of a Europe-wide network of digitisation centres. The Commission will also address, in a series of policy documents, the issue of the appropriate framework for intellectual property rights protection in the context of digital libraries.

You can read an overview of the suggestions they received [PDF]. All the responses can be found here, except for two that requested not to be included in the online collection.

Here's Microsoft Europe's suggestion.

Their pitch uses the subtle FUD that their XML will offer backward compatibility to older Microsoft documents. If that is the pitch, how to they plan to keep ODF from being able to do the same thing, pray tell? Will applications that support their XML be able to open older Word documents, whereas applications using ODF will be shut out or hobbled? You think? If that isn't the plan, how is it a selling point that their XML can do it? I noticed they mentioned that at LinuxForum also (audio here). Let me show you what they wrote, and you be the judge. I find Microsoft's vision for the library disturbing in several ways.

Here's how they put it:

The technology designed to enable access to the content is of great importance. ....

Microsoft also recognizes the importance of preservation beyond the life of any single product or organization. Information created by an author belongs to the author and should be under the author’s full control. These objectives can be met only through standardisation. Acknowledging this issue, Microsoft has recently submitted the specification for the MS Office Open XML format to the ECMA International body for standardisation, with the ultimate goal to obtain ISO certification. The objective is to protect the investments of Microsoft clients and consumers who created billions of Office documents and to provide a mature and extensible open standard XML format that could be used for preservation of the digital content. The British Library joined the initiative and is now chairing the technical committee TC45 in ECMA international.

What they failed to mention: there is already a standard, OpenDocument Format, a year ahead of Microsoft in the standards approval track. I don't see any obvious input from any ODF group or at first glance from IBM or Sun or Novell or anyone to tell the EU any different. Hopefully, it's there and I just missed it.

The most chilling of all the proposals mentioned in the overview document is one to charge the public for access to public domain works. No. Really. Microsoft has a sneakier method:

However, besides a careful approach to technical issues, we have to find a way to make the digitization effort self-sustainable. We propose a strategy that is focussed on the content exploitation models. We recommend that content consumption scenarios strongly complement other factors, such as preservation, in driving the main aspects of the digitization process: selection of material, quality of the content scanning, metadata enhancement, delivery channel, and access services. This same principle is expected to boost the digitization of the non-English material as local economies and local needs present opportunities for exploitation of such data.

Most of the scenarios for exploiting digital content will require a clear value proposition. We propose to enhance digitized and archived content by context sensitive aggregation with the contemporary content. Essentially, the archived information would be used in association with the current and highly valued information that may be in the public domain (already in the digital form) or distributed by publishers.

One such scenario is educational material for schools. Augmentation of text books with the digitized content of historical documents provides a clear value that can be captured through the supplementary cost of educational material and re-invested into digitization. The key is a clear connection with the educational curriculum. At the national level, teaching history, language, geography, and similar subjects is primarily done in the native language and focussed on the national aspects of the shared history. They are particularly amenable to boosting digitization of the material in the native language. Furthermore, similar type of collaboration with newspapers, journals, etc., in a local language, is possible through augmentation with digital copies of newspapers from the past, for comparison, specific interest, or pleasure. Again, the augmented value of the publications can be captured through appropriate pricing and re-invested into further digitization.

Chilling, no?

  1. Take a public domain work,
  2. add an extension,
  3. and presto! Profit.

What about bloggers and other "consumers" who might be creating "content"? Microsoft has a plan for that too:

Can the public help in the selection and gathering of valuable content and digitization? As individuals prepare their own archives they may have created publications and information resources that are of wider interest and that ultimately may become valuable and unique or rare. Can we build a model of ‘donation’ of personal digital archives that makes sense and complements other digitization efforts? What could the consumers get in return? Could, for example, libraries be reformed to subsume the role of data repositories, covering storage and backups for the consumers’ contemporary and aging information? In return the libraries inherit the digital archives after a given period of time and can make some of them available for public consumption.

So we little people can give away our rights, monetary, moral, and copyright, to libraries for the greater good. Businesses however ... well, Microsoft has a different plan for them:

In order to continue protecting the intellectual property, and maintain the societal and economic role of European publishers, content creators and distributors need DRM (Digital Rights Management) technologies and clear IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) policies. Without addressing these challenges we will not be able to create incentives for the European publishers to contribute and invest in the vision of the digital information society. There are a wide variety of copyright licensing models that could help make this happen, from individually negotiated licenses, to blanket licenses such as some publishing organizations have already negotiated with national libraries, to ‘free’ licenses such as that promoted by the Creative Commons for those who do not want remuneration for the content they own. ....

ENABLING BUSINESS MODELS

In order to enable and ensure that publishers and authors can recover the value of the published work, it is absolutely necessary to have two pieces of technology and services in place: a DRM and a micro-payment technology. Once the information stakeholders can control the revenue, they will be open to providing information online. Furthermore, we have to respect legal measures already in place to ensure that the publishers of copyrighted information are protected and that the protection provided by the law is enforceable.

At the end, you find the business pitch:

Together with more than 37.000 local European software partners we are providing a business and technological platform for addressing the significant technological, social, economic and policy challenges. Should the interest exist in the Commission and among the European Member States, we would like to participate in the further dialogue and activities around definition, research, and execution of some action. We expect to be able to contribute in:
Technological advancements in content creation tools, metadata repositories, search technologies and accessibility tools for users with disabilities.

Business information for the creation of vendor neutral technological and business platforms.

Mutually defined public private partnerships

Common approach for awareness raising in the EU 25 member states

Joint research activities in digital information management and retrieval.

So, that's the Microsoft vision. How do you like it?


  


Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library | 226 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here, if any.
Authored by: electron on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 03:30 AM EST
Ooh - A first for me! Cool! :o)

---
Electron

"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic - here.
Authored by: electron on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 03:32 AM EST
Both together - and my first time for either too! :o)

---
Electron

"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: electron on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 03:36 AM EST
> Microsoft also recognizes the importance of preservation
> beyond the life of any single product or organization.
> Information created by an author belongs to the author and
> should be under the author’s full control.

Interesting that Microsoft recognises the "_information_ created by an
author" as belonging to that author, instead of the "_document_
created by an author".

---
Electron

"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

what ODF can't do
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 03:59 AM EST
"If that is the pitch, how to they plan to keep ODF from being able to do
the same thing, pray tell?"

I believe ODF will be unable to 'open' older MSOffice documents, as it is a
standard, not a software product.
Some or all software products using ODF can already open older MSOffice
documents anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Help, they want to steal our heritage
Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 04:00 AM EST
>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Take a public domain work,
2. add an extension,
3. and presto! Profit.
<<<<<<<<<<<

This is a political statement that can have some repercusions.

Effectively, they propose to steal our common heritage and culture.

Rob

---
Revenge, Justice, Security, and Revenge, chose any two.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: Arker on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 04:23 AM EST
How do I like it? Ugh. Just ugh.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: analyzer on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 04:25 AM EST
For plain nasty viciousness this will take some beating.

Essentially, we know we are criminals but if you trust us we can make loads of cash off your backs
you'll be able to get locked in to our make money from the newly made private public domain.

yeah right on MS

Be good peeps

[ Reply to This | # ]

Beware the EU MSXML FUD - American Libraries meet in Washington this month.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 04:36 AM EST

Microsoft throws governments a standardisation bone

November 22, 2005, 09:30 GMT

Not everyone's convinced by the efforts, as Office Open XML is 'still a format controlled by a single commercial entity' ....Microsoft intends to submit file formats for its new Office 12 applications to the European standards body ECMA International. The company hopes this will allay concern about its level of control over document formats....

The British Library on Monday lauded Microsoft's move.

"It's an important step forward for digital preservation and will help us fulfil the British Library's core responsibility of making our digital collections accessible for generations to come," Adam Farquhar, head of e-architecture at the British Library, said in a statement... ZDnet


“Just as our predecessors stewarded the development of the national published archive over the past 250 years, the British Library is committed to preserving and providing access to the U.K.’s digital heritage,” said Adam Farquhar, head of e-Architecture at the British Library. “We expect that establishing Microsoft Office Open XML as an open standard will substantially enhance our ability to achieve this. It’s an important step forward for digital preservation and will help us fulfill the British Library’s core responsibility of making our digital collections accessible for generations to come.”.... Microsoft


Brian Jones: Office XML Formats

Back from the Ecma meetings..... MSDN


---------------------------------------------



Th e British Library, XML, and the Rest of the Story

The British Library was prominently featured in the November 22 announcement by Microsoft as a supporter of Microsoft's plan to offer its XML Reference Schema to Ecma and ISO. As is not unusual, the XML press release included quotes from a number of supporters, including in this case this statement by Adam Farquahar, head of e-Architecture for the British Library:.....

So far, this could have been scripted by Microsoft's own PR deparment. But the concluding paragraphs of the article provide a very different perspective (emphasis added by me): Early in November, Microsoft announced a project to digitize 100,000 rare and out-of-print books from the British Library collection. [For more information, see the NewsBreak at http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb051121-2.shtml.]

Farquhar says that that effort is not directly related to the Open XML announcement: “Some people think we are adopting Microsoft formats as our standard for digital preservation. This is not right; we are striving to make sure that content we receive in MS formats will be preserved.” He continued: “What format will we deliver? We deliver a lot of articles and in many formats. We deliver content in PDF, Office Open, ODF, TIFF — whatever format the customer wants.” ..... ConsortiumInfo


--------------------------------------------------

It would appear that the British Library only wants Microsoft's XML to ensure compatibility with dealing with those awkward old M$ formats. They actually support any format the customer wants. including ODF. Since Mr. Farquhar supports ODF for the British Library, I am sure he will support ODF for the EU Library also.( Can you imagine France locking up their books in an American Microsoft format?), but what about the US?


The Technology Conference for Information Age Librarians

March 22-24, 2006 Hilton Washington

Internet@Schools East 2006

This specialized two-day conference, sponsored by MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, will be held on March 23-24, 2006, in conjunction with Computers in Libraries 2006..... Info Today


Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 05:56 AM EST
I don't mind their vision, so long as
  1. There is provision for 'free' culture. When I'm at work, whatever I do is my employer's. When I'm at home, if I feel like going to Salisbury Cathedral, scanning the Magna Carta, and putting it on my web site for all to enjoy, I want the right to do that. If my employer tells me to drive to Salisbury, scan the thing with his professional-quality scanners, and put it on his web site for free, that's his business.
  2. Presumably the micropayments are intended to result in nanopayments to Redmond. So long as Redmond have no monopoly in nanopayments; i.e. I may implement a 'free' micropayment system if I can figure how to; then that would be OK.
  3. There needs to be some scheme for respecting 'fair use' and 'copyright expiry'. Copyright is not purely for the commercial benefit of the publishers; if it becomes so, I will vote against it at the next democratic election. It is for the encouragement of the creative arts; commercial benefit of publishers is a means to an end.
  4. Will a micropayment service provider be required to guarantee that I have access to the material after handing over my micropayment ? I hope so.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: ruurd on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 06:44 AM EST
What is bad about the MS scenario as opposed to the Red
Hat scenario is that Red Hat actually adds value by
gathering all the different parts and creating a distro so
that the consumer of that distro can spare himself the
effort of doing that, whereas MS is proposing to take
something the Europeans have already paid for in the first
place (VAT anyone?) and then charge them even more for it.

---
ruurd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Only one response in .doc format
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 06:52 AM EST
At the top of the list of responses on the EU web site is the instruction that
<b> You can download the comments by clicking on the link
(.pdf).</b> While this is the format that most respondants used, one
response in 224 stands out by being in .doc format. Since I can find no advice
in the EU's questions that suggested what format to respond in, why is it that
everyone except for one respondant chose to respond using a format other than
.doc?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft FUD or Lies?
Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 07:11 AM EST
In the current Linux Reference [sic] ads Microsoft list a "Tommy Hilfiger Case Study" where it's claimed that they couldn't get a Linux solution working but after switching to Microsoft blah, blah, blah.

But the interesting thing is, if you check the Hilfiger site on netcraft, it comes back as Linux /Apache and has been for some time.

---
If you love some code, set it free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Business has no interest in a public domain
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 07:19 AM EST


Unless there's money to be made.


---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 07:33 AM EST
"Again, the augmented value of the publications can be captured through
appropriate pricing and re-invested into further digitization."

Everything seems innocuous until Microsoft includes the last sentence above,
which show Microsoft's true colors. Historically, Microsoft is a vendor that has
been long on marketing hype, expansive on promises and woefully short on
delivery. In addition, Microsoft does merely have a monopoly but thinks, acts
and breathes as a monopolist and an unrepentant, law breaking monopolist at
that. The Europeans are probably better off to send both Microsoft and its
anti-public proposals packing.

---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 07:52 AM EST
The thing I find repulsive about the MS Corporate approach is the belief MS
seems to take about the consumer. MS is acting like it knows what is best for
everybody when the company is only concerned for it's interests and not the
global population. MS will never be concerned about the greater good and it
actually can't if it is to survive as an entity. So those decision makers in any
government should completely ignore MS when discussing the digitization of any
public documents because the goals of the MS corporation will always be counter
to those needed to supply public documentation to the general public.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The right to read
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 07:54 AM EST
See the new picks for the parable by RMS. I have siad it before and I will say
it again: the man is a visonary.

Reading the MS suggestion list, these bits caught my eye:

+++++++++

"Enterprise search engines need to be optimized for a vast amount of
structured data with comparatively very few hyperlinks among documents."

MS can't keep up with Google.

--

"Particularly exciting is the opportunity to enhance the original content
with the input and opinions of the content users such as content reviews and
discussions."

This is a direct play to the EU database directive.

--

"We propose a strategy that is focussed on the content exploitation models.


We recommend that content consumption scenarios strongly complement other
factors, such as preservation, in driving the main aspects of the digitization
process: selection of material, quality of the content scanning, metadata
enhancement, delivery channel, and access services.

This same principle is expected to boost the digitization of the non-English
material as local economies and local needs present opportunities for
exploitation of such data."

In other words we want to follow the music distribution model. We pick what we
think will sell and digitse that that. We might be wrong but who cares? The
music business makes billions.

--

"Most of the scenarios for exploiting digital content will require a clear
value proposition.

"We propose to enhance digitized and archived content by context sensitive
aggregation with the contemporary content.

Essentially, the archived information would be used in association with the
current and highly valued information that may be in the public domain (already
in the digital form) or distributed by publishers."

See PJ's comments above. Add in the EU database directive - this will be
considered to be a database.

--

"For example, a researcher may be prepared to have a rare book digitized in
order to have a more convenient access to the manuscript.

By ordering the copy to be digitized and paying towards the cost of the effort,
the person contributes to both the selection process and the digitization.

The copy would then be provided to others who may need on the same basis as the
electronic books, software, etc."

This might have a problem at least in part with copyright law. Mechanical
copying of the document as proposed here is not protected by copyright law.
Hence the need for 'enhancements.'

Note: The reseacher picks the potentially valuable material. He/she then pays
the digitizer for making the copy. The digitizer subsequently controls the use
of the digitised copy. Money for old rope.

You get the product identification done for you. You get paid for making the
copy. You only have to market the product.

This is a description of MS' core business strategy to a T.

Basic was not invented by MS. OSes were not invented by MS. Word processors were
not invented by MS. Spreadsheets were not invented by MS. GUIs' were not
invented by MS. E mail was not invented by MS.

MS-DOS is a re branded product. Access is a re branded product. PowerPoint is a
re branded product.

The list goes on. And on.

MS are good - very good - at taking a concept that has been shown to work,
buying it or copying it, re branding it then and selling it by the truckload.

This memo plays straight to thier *considerable* strenghts.

--

"This model enables the libraries or digital archives to explore two ways
of funding digitization: ‘Digitize per Read’, i.e., request from individual
users who are prepared to contribute to the cost and from the national
governments.

In ‘Digitize per Read’ model, the cost can be determined based on the identified
demand, spreading the cost across existing and anticipating number of interested
individual.

It is critical that digitization is provided in a reasonable time frame and at a
reasonable cost.

In the other scenario, the evidence of demand can be used to raise
investment."

*Please* RMS's parable at this point. He wrote it initially in 2002. MS clearly
have read it. Its almost word for word what we see here.

++++++++++

At this point I want to point out that there are a LOT of still popular music
recording about to fall into the public domain. Elvis is already in part public
domain. The Beetles are almost there. By digitising these as MS suggest here
they get a new lease of life.

There has been a LOT of nonsense about extending copyright to protect the
'Beetles heritage value' - I wish I was making this up. It sounds very like the
Mickey Mouse never ending copyright story. If you ask me the Fab Four have done
very nicely out of their work. As have thier distributors.

The publishing industry wont be entirely happy with this suggestion. *No one*
wants MS as a compeditor. By allowing MS in here the publishers would end up
competing directly with MS. Dont mind any nonsense about 'partnerships.' Been
there, seen that. Ask IBM about 'partnering MS.'

If the Authors Guild think Google is a BAD thing, they havent seen MS in
operation.

--

MadScientist

[ Reply to This | # ]

Charging SCHOOLS for access to material that is Public Domain ? Software Patented idea by MS?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 08:01 AM EST
RE: "One such scenario is educational material for schools. Augmentation
of text books with the digitized content of historical documents provides a
clear value that can be captured through the supplementary cost of educational
material and re-invested into digitization. The key is a clear connection with
the educational curriculum"...

Microsoft has a software patent application #20040234938 that is a System and
method for providing instrucitonal feedback to a user. Did this ever get
approved. It was aimed at EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE.

On wonders if Microsoft has already at least applied for a patent on this idea
that they have that PJ explains above. It would make sense as any suggestion
that is an idea of theirs don't they try to patent it!

If they have a patent, or an applicatoin... then, to the EU they might be trying
to sell them on something that they already have a patent on and so a monopoly.

How many other innocent ideas has Microsoft that they have patented or have
patents pending? How many of ideas regarding schools do they have patented?

Just a heads up... if they are talking about it, then it most likely is
somewhere in or thru the US and other countries SOFTWARE PATENT and/or BUSINESS
METHOD PATENT pipeline.

Wanna bet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Vendor Neutral?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 08:49 AM EST
Business information for the creation of vendor neutral technological and business platforms.
Of course the only vendor that would be able to implement the patented system is...

Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No Dublin Core... so much for standards
Authored by: Sean DALY on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 08:52 AM EST
I am astonished that anyone could write a paper concerning long-term digital archiving without referring to the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative.

This ISO and NISO standard grew to meet the needs of librarians and is an exciting project meant to simplify data retrieval and search amongst dissimilar but standards-built platforms.

My own multimedia database at work has 25,000 films and 45,000 scans, every one of which is indexed to metadata with the Dublin Core subset. This was easy to do - when I migrated from MS ASP / Site Server / SQL to Zope/Plone, which is natively Dublin Core, something the MS products (SharePont, Content Server) are not.

Sean DALY

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 08:56 AM EST
This stuff is so creepy that that it makes me nauseous.
M$ with their statements make me think of some ugly,
slimey, infectious, alien life form that is trying to
take over the earth. Several SF themes come to mind.
The Borg might be appropriate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS XML - compatible with older file formats
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST
This is is news to me. How an old file binary format be compatible with a newer one based on plain text?

Aren't they trying to confuse the issue? Do they mean their software is backward compatible while supporting the new format? Again their are FUDding by confusing the format with the software supporting it.

There so many fallacies in their claim beside the obvious difference between software and format. They assume they don't have bugs in their own backward compatibility support. They ignore that software supporting OpenDocument are known to support Officie binary formats.

The question whether a third party supporting MS XML automatically inherit the ability to support binary Office documents becomes very relevant. The answer to it exposes the confusion and the lie.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS already has rights to pictures
Authored by: philc on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 09:23 AM EST
MS has bought the rights to photograph and catalog many of the worlds museum
collections. You cannot take a photograph of a picture without stepping on MS
rights.

MS correctly understands that there is long lasting value in information. They
believe that they should own or at least control that value.

I hope the EU, after evaluating the morals and ethics of MS, decides to go
elsewhere for help.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Citizens vs. Consumers
Authored by: scott_R on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 09:27 AM EST

Nice touch, MS substituting the word "consumer" for the word "citizen". Consumers are expected to pay for services, while citizens [should] have the right to access information pertaining to their governing body.

It kind of bothers me to think that one day it might be possible for a criminal to get out of a charge, claiming that the reason s/he committed the crime was because they didn't realize what they did was against the law, and being poor, they had no reasonable way of finding out the law for themselves. Unfortunately, it looks like a few greedy folks are just driving full speed towards that future.

Can't wait till we all have to buy tax forms, or go to jail for tax evasion. I'm sure there will be a considerable premium printing fee for documents you are required to file, too.

That'll be a fun day...

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am beginning to feel sorry for Microsoft
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 09:27 AM EST
Whatever might be said about Microsoft's business methods and even about their
products, it is sad to see the decline of this formally great and powerful
institution.

Microsoft has played a pivotal role in introducing the desktop computer to
businesses everywhere. Even if many of the ideas were not their own, they
brought them to a wider audience through their, almost universally accepted,
EULA.

Microsoft did much for the standardisation of software, as IBM had done for the
standardisation of hardware, on the desktop computer. Unfortunately for
Microsoft, these standards, being imposed on their customers by the 'iron-fist'
rule of the executive officers in Redmond, were, as for the former Soviet Union,
the cause of their downfall.

We thought that the 'chair throwing' incident was just a minor aberration,
little realising the deeper underlying malady that was in the process of
enveloping the entire company and leading to its present pitiful condition. It
is indeed sad to see this company, which once prided itself on its intellectual
property, now, having lost its intellectual faculties, left mindlessly clutching
its property. It is likewise sad to see its deteriorating physical condition,
and the consequent loss of dignity, now being reduced to total dependence on
lawyers to attend to its most basic needs.

Microsoft is now resident in a home for feeble-minded companies along with its
old friends, Intel and Dell. They spend all day confabulating about a new Dell
laptop with a water-cooled, triple-core, Pentium 5 running Vista. Its old friend
SCO does not participate, having been moved to the secure wing.

***********************************************************

I was going to make a serious comment about today's topic. But, as the
submission from Microsoft was so awful in every respect (self-serving,
illogical, and in .doc format), I thought that I would make my serious comment
humourous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tragedy of the Commons....
Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 09:48 AM EST
Lessig originally made the case that the tragedy of the commons couldn't be
repeated in the digital age.
It looks like Microsoft, and others, are out to prove him wrong.
All they have to do is control access.


---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 01:54 PM EST
I'm a little confused here. Didn't MS just tell the EU Commission that they had
no intention of providing useful documentation to Windows servers, that the EU
could not 'conspire' with MS's competitors to determine if useful documentation
had been provided, and the US courts would be invoked to put the EU in it's
place? Now they are telling a different branch of the same Commission that they
should use MS products to store entire libraries of data? If the EU goes along
with this silliness, then they deserve everything they get. "Fool me once
......"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Better Idea - Heads Up, ODF - MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 07 2006 @ 05:21 PM EST
How about taxing the wealthiest one percent to pay for the digitization
standards. After a number of years, lets be generous, 70, copyrighted material
enters the public domain for free use by anyone at no charge. If you really
want to sell copyrighted content, use Amazon.


Ahh... EXPLITIVE DELETED. Sorry PJ. This has just got me too
riled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some thoughts on DRM
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 08 2006 @ 09:03 AM EST
Businesses think they need DRM. Lots of Authors might be confident that enough people will pay them for access to their works, others will not be that insightful.

Let's assume a DRM system will actually be necessary to make electronic libraries happen, what would this DRM have to look like?

Here are some suggestions:

- It would have to be standardized by a mayor standardization body, preferably ISO.

- It must be possible to make that DRM system available on all computers (including future computers). Free specifications of that system must be available to achieve that.

- It must ensure that the library can copy the electronic books to new hardware without loosing access (hardware independant DRM).

- It must ensure that works which go into public domain can be un-DRMed by EVERYBODY who previously purchased the work.

Therefore current DRM systems are definitely not suitable for electronic libraries. They will not be able to stay in business if they try to provide DRMed content, because most customers will not pay money for books, which they cannot copy the 3 interesting pages from.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They finally state their true Open XML intentions. Same dog, same tricks.
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Thursday, March 09 2006 @ 01:19 PM EST
Sorry about insulting dogs. But they said it all in the following statement...

“Acknowledging this issue, Microsoft has recently submitted the specification for the MS Office Open XML format to the ECMA International body for standardisation, with the ultimate goal to obtain ISO certification. The objective is to protect the investments of Microsoft clients and consumers who created billions of Office documents and to provide a mature and extensible open standard XML format that could be used for preservation of the digital content.”

This statement speaks volumes about their specification and true intentions. There is this… (protect the investments of Microsoft clients and consumers). Translated; the specification is really interested in Microsoft clients and consumers only; contrary to what they have stated in public regarding their “open” XML standard. And then there is …“to provide a mature and extensible open standard XML format that could be used for preservation of the digital content”. How brazen can you get; mature? How can a specification that doesn’t exist today be considered “mature”? That’s funny in itself; but the rest is translated; we will provide all the hooks for using our software to achieve DRM so (we can make even more money by forcing people to use or license our proprietary software), oops, I mean you can protect and control IP and copyrights.

I don’t know about you; but I think these words alone speak volumes regarding Open XML and their intentions. And all I needed to read was the above statement to shoot down their proposal (but I did read the rest). Their tone is all about money. They are hoping they can convince the “money” people (their typical strategy). Then they will turn this into a “you see everyone, we are “open” because they chose us for this project” propaganda; when that had nothing to do with it.

What part of "STANDARD" do they not understand?

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Makes a Pitch ...
Authored by: tanstaafl on Saturday, March 11 2006 @ 09:31 PM EST
... and of course, the EU and everybody European should be wary, but only
because it's MS making the pitch, not because there is profit involved. Lots of
folks (Red Hat, IBM, Novell, etc.) make money from freely-available software, so
the crime isn't in attaching 'extensions' to public-domain documents, it's in
the end result of the same old business model, in which I have seen no change.
Offer a 'free,' if second-rate, product along with the OS, then either buy or
eventually lock out the competition because of proprietary extensions. I
wouldn't object as loudly if MS didn't own 95% of the market; this leveraging of
a virtual monopoly wouldn't be allowed in any other industry. MS is truly the
best at marketing, both to consumers and to Government prosecutors!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )