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
Microsoft Says It Will Release Binary Office Formats - Which? -- Updated
Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:39 PM EST

There's nothing like an EU Commission investigation to get Microsoft to open up a little, is there?

Today Brian Jones has two announcements, that Microsoft is making binary Office formats (.doc; .xls; .ppt) available under the Open Specification license Promise. 1 You won't have to email them and be evaluated any more. From what I've heard, the way it worked was that only companies and governments could get them before. Of course Jones tells it a different way, as I'll show you. The second announcement is about yet another translator project, an open source "Binary Format-to-ISO/IEC JTC 1 DIS 29500 Translator Project".

Here's the second announcement:

Initiate a Binary Format-to-ISO/IEC JTC 1 DIS 29500 Translator Project on the open source software development web site SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/ ) in collaboration with independent software vendors. The Translator Project will create software tools, plus guidance, showing how a document written using the Binary Formats can be translated to DIS 29500. The Translator will be available under the open source Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, and anyone can use the mapping, submit bugs and feedback, or contribute to the Project. The Translator Project will start on February 15, 2008.

So, the current translators they've been telling us were wonderful... weren't? And Microsoft won't help? Surely they are in the best position to get it right. As Groklaw member PolR [points out in a comment, Jones is explicitly saying the translator project is a response to some ISO JTC1 national bodies that asked for the details of the mapping between OOXML and the binary formats. (doc, xls, ppt etc, not the older formats). So instead of giving the information they already have and used to implement Office 2007, they ask third parties and partners to figure it out and come up with a converter? This is their response? If they wanted to say 'No' why they didn't say so?

I am thinking it'd be wise to download the formats fast as soon as they are available. Microsoft's terms keep changing over the years and they can close off too, once the spotlight from the EU Commission is turned off, I'm guessing. I think Microsoft gave free access to this format documentation back in 1997 and then over the years added more restrictive licensing terms, at one point adding a clause to the license that prevented use by competitor word processors, then closed off public access altogether unless you were a company or a government. Wasn't there a memo by Bill Gates that surfaced in Comes v Microsoft, the Iowa case, where Gates said that giving competitors access to the documentation was "crazy"? I need to search for that. Update: Here it is [PDF], with thanks to Groklaw member emacsuser's better memory.

Here's the Jones story, and note how carefully it is worded to sound like anyone could have this documentation since 2006:

The current form of the documentation has been available since 2006, where anyone could get the documentation by sending an email to Microsoft as described as http://support.microsoft.com/kb/840817/en-us. The documents were available royalty-free under RAND-Z. We already have hundreds of companies, including IBM and SUN, as well as government institutions who have the documents.

Let's do take a look at that instruction page he references. Note the exact wording, and the highlighting is mine:

If you have to extract information from Microsoft Excel workbooks, Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, or Microsoft Word documents, you can use several methods. These methods include API programming calls, Office Open XML, XML, RTF, or HTML. If these methods do not address your needs, you may be eligible to participate in a Royalty-Free File Format Program and to receive technical documentation for certain Microsoft Office binary file formats.

You *may* be eligible. It was entirely up to Microsoft.

[Update 2: Sean Daly has found confirmation of my memory on how it worked before, this earlier Jones blog article from 2006, and if you look in the comments section, BradC (Brad Corbin) says this:

MS does give documentation to Partners, Governments, and Institutions that request it, have a good reason, and (I assume) sign an NDA. The fact that they don't release it to *competitors* is a historical business decision, and is certainly their perogative [sic]. This used to be standard practice for software, and it is one of the thing that is definitely changing.

End of update.]

So that's the change, not that Jones points it out. The old terms are here [PDF]. If you look at the Open Specification Promise, you will notice some details:

This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications. New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list. In connection with the specifications listed below, this Promise also applies to the required elements of optional portions of such specifications.

The identified version of Office is Office 2003 XML Schemas and Office Open XML 1.0 - Ecma 376, so I'll assume they haven't updated that page yet, but it's something to check. Which versions will be released? All? Some? I don't see where that is specified. I hate to be a cynic, but fool me once and all that. It's one thing for Microsoft to promise something; it's another to follow through. Naturally, everyone wants to be able to flawlessly render Office 97 and earlier too, as well as Office 2007, just like Microsoft can. On a good day.

And of course the GPL issue remains a problem in my mind with this license:

Q: Is this OSP sub-licensable?

A: There is no need for sublicensing. This promise is directly applicable to you and everyone else who wants to use it. Accordingly, your distributees, customers and vendors can directly take advantage of this same promise, and have the exact same protection that you have.

Q: Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL? And can anyone implement the specification(s) without any concerns about Microsoft patents?

A: The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specification(s). We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s).

I don't see how this works with the GPL, with the way it's distributed. Sublicensing without having to contact anyone is the rule in GPL stuff. As usual with Microsoft, the devil is in the details.

I guess screenshots might be good, given that the page of instructions Jones referenced is going to change:

And here's a screenshot of the way the old rigmarole began with the email evaluation of your eligibility:

Microsoft says it will make the release of the binary formats by February 15th. I don't see how that gives anyone time to evaluate before the ballot resolution meeting at the end of February.


1 Wait a second. I just noticed it's not a license; it's a promise. So here's my worry: a license can be yours to keep even if Microsoft sells whatever patents it thinks it could sue you with for using its formats. But what about a promise? Couldn't the new owner of the patents say it never promised you anything? That only Microsoft made you that promise? If so, you are so out of luck, my friend. Here's the wording that worries me now:

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification (“Covered Implementation”), subject to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. ...To clarify, “Microsoft Necessary Claims” are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification. “Covered Specifications” are listed below.

So, it's a personal promise from Microsoft to you covering Microsoft-owned or controlled patents. And if they are no longer Microsoft-owned or -controlled?


  


Microsoft Says It Will Release Binary Office Formats - Which? -- Updated | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
billg memo on formats ..
Authored by: emacsuser on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:50 PM EST
"Wasn't there a memo by Bill Gates that surfaced in Comes v Microsoft, the Iowa case, where Gates said that giving competitors access to the documentation was "crazy"? I need to search for that"

Allow me Pamie ..

"Why would the Office group be giving out the Office 2000 formats to competitors? To me this seems crazy"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic -- Cattleback patent now owned by ex-IBM VP of IP
Authored by: stats_for_all on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:50 PM EST
The Cattleback Patent has been updated in the USPTO assignment database. Link to Assignment database Black Maple, LLC with a MoFo San Diego attorney address executed an ownership change from Cattleback on 12/11/07 and posted the change 1/10/08.

Black Maple, LLC, in turn, assigned the patent to "Allied Security Trust I" of Poughkeepsie, NY on 12/20/07 and posted the change of ownership on 1/10/08 .

Allied Security Trust owns *no* other patents. It is run out of mail drop at 448 Freedom Plains Road in suburban Poughkeepsie.

Allied Security Trust is run by Brian Hinman. He has a small web footprint, complaining about a sewer line in LaGrange NY, and presenting at IP conferences for IBM in 2006 and independently in 2007.

His web bio from a recent conference says this:

Brian Hinman
Chief Executive Officer
Allied Security Trust (AST)


Brian Hinman is currently CEO of AST. Previously he was Vice President, Intellectual Property and Licensing for IBM Corporation. While at IBM, Brian held various positions including Business Development Executive for IBM Research at the Thomas J Watson Research Laboratory. Prior to IBM, Brian was Corporate Director of Business Development and Licensing at Westinghouse Corporation. Brian holds degrees from the University of Pittsburgh and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
The MoFo San Diego Attorney whose name appears on the assignment is the very young Anelia Delcheva. Her bio emphasises the IBM internship she served.
Ms. Delcheva is an associate in Morrison & Foerster’s San Diego office. Her practice involves general corporate and technology transaction matters.

Ms. Delcheva received her B.A. in Physics, summa cum laude , from Clark University in 2002 where she was awarded the Erickson Scholarship and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She also received American Physics Society scholarships while interning at the IBM Almaden and Yorktown Heights research facilities. She received her legal education at the UCLA School of Law (J.D., 2006) where she was the Managing Editor of the UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs and the Articles Editor of the UCLA Journal of Law and Technology.

Allied Security Trust I has a Delaware business registration dated 1/1/2007

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please.
Authored by: billyskank on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:54 PM EST
And in 45 seconds I'll post the Off Topic thread too, unless somebody else does
first. :)

---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: NeilG on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:54 PM EST
Usual caveats.

---
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens. - Jimi Hendrix

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks comments here please.
Authored by: billyskank on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:55 PM EST
Since I was pipped to the Off Topic thread. :)

---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Old Format what about the NEW format? NT
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 01:59 PM EST
These are the old formats, not the Office 2007 formats. IBM's Lotus Symphony
reads and writes these old formats and is free too. Symphony is simple and easy
to use.

NmB

[ Reply to This | # ]

Commercial decision
Authored by: sciamiko on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 02:16 PM EST
I think this is a commercial decision. MS have realised the true cost of
supporting these old formats forever and want to offload it to third parties so
they can drop the whole lot. They've milked them dry, so why keep the secrets?

What puzzles me is why they put all the compatibility tags into MSOOXML, unless
the objections made them think carefully and this is the result.

s.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Says It Will Release Binary Office Formats - Which?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 02:42 PM EST
oh I'll be so pleased to give all that information to Microsoft so they hunt me
down and sue me for using operating systems in my computer :-)

yeah right...

[ Reply to This | # ]

50% MSOOXML Vote - 50% EU Commission
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 03:37 PM EST
I think this is a clever move from MS's point of view, they are able to set the
terms themselves at the moment, once the EU has investigated anything was
possible.

Also it may play well with the MSOOXML Vote.

I think this underlines how much MS is now gun shy when it comes to the EU.

---
When a potential MS convert asks; What about AV?
Your best answer is to simply tell them:
Sure use ClamAV it's free.
Didn't digress and put them off moving.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Says It Will Release Binary Office Formats - Which?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 03:42 PM EST
Errm...why is anyone surprised by this move?

Ecma has in the resolution comments for dis29500 already promised to give full
information needed to implement legacy document behavior. Microsoft only now
gives what they must provide for dis29500 to have a chance to be approved.

The only scenario that we can expect Microsoft to back from this is if ooxml is
rejected. Actually it seem like a smart move anyway so I think Microsoft will
stick to the idea to drop direct support of the old formats and employ
converters to current format.

If we look at the greater picture it is fairly obvious that Microsoft took the
gamble with ooxml and ISO because the gain for them could be incredible. The
internet managed to assemble enough pressure to stop this, I doubt that
Microsoft is too depressed about this, they probably calculated about the
current situation from the start as one of the cases they could profit from.

Problem is that people objecting to ooxml lost sight of the true issues due to
small error like the leap bug. Real problems are:
1) Two standards for the same thing is really bad for the users
2) Microsoft control development of dis29500 and can hold of information about
upcoming versions until their own office already implement them so they always
have a head start.
3) The effort to implement for instance VML and other deprecated stuff is so
high that full support is a herculean feat for everyone besides Microsoft. That
they give in and give the specifications for the old formats will give OOXML the
chance to become defacto standard before the opposition can make use of the
knowledge about the old formats.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Best response may be none at all
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 03:59 PM EST

I only write code that reads standard, public file formats. I will have nothing to do with popularizing proprietary file formats by developing software that supports them.

Now, programmers have to do what their customers/employers will pay for, and I understand that not all programmers are in a position to make the same decision I have. But I suggest it should be the goal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Says It Will Release Binary Office Formats - Which?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 03:59 PM EST
Brian Jones is explicitly saying the translator project is a response to some
ISO JTC1 national bodies that asked for the details of the mapping between OOXML
and the binary formats. (doc, xls, ppt etc, not the older formats with silly
tags) There was comments to that effect in the OOXML ballot responses.

So instead of giving the information they already have and used to implement
Office 2007, they ask third parties and partners to figure it out by themselves
and come up with a converter. This is their response to the NBs.

If they wanted to say 'No' why they didn't say so?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Says It Will Release Binary Office Formats - Which?
Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 04:55 PM EST
> And of course the GPL issue remains a problem with this
> license...

Since they are specifications and not code there should be no problem at all.
Implementations will incorporate only the unprotected ideas from the specs, not
protected elements of the specifications themselves. It is also not hard to do
non-infringing rewrites of specifications.

---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License

[ Reply to This | # ]

How about unnecessary claims ??
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 07:18 PM EST
"Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any
Microsoft Necessary Claims"

Doesn't say anything at all about their unNecessary claims!

Then again, going by their historical behaviour,
Microsoft promises have never meant much anyway.

As far as I am concerned ALL of Microsofts claims are
unNecessary anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Third party's patents, anyone?
Authored by: lxoliva on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 07:25 PM EST
> So, it's a personal promise from Microsoft to you covering Microsoft-owned
or controlled patents. And if they are no longer Microsoft-owned or
-controlled?

What if the implementation already reads on third parties' patents, and
Microsoft got a nice agreement for themselves? Something like, give us a
license, and we'll publish the formats such that lots of people will implement
them and you'll be able to go after them.

It wouldn't be the first time Microsoft gets their allies to sue their opponents
for alleged patent infringement, now wouuld it?

---
--
Alexandre Oliva

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where does this come from?
Authored by: philc on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 08:46 PM EST
Both Gates and Ballmer have on numerous occasions over the decades stated that
interoperability is bad for business because it reduces lock-in.


When Microsoft announces in a Sec filing that interoperability is an important
corporate priority, it is worth taking a close look.


When they freely offer for download the needed interoperaability documentation
for any and all to take, no strings attached forever, it will be real. Until
then its just FUD.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think everybody has missed something here
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 09:30 PM EST
I think everyone has missed an important point in this article. The block
entitled Second Announcement says:

"The Translator Project will create software tools, plus guidance, showing
how a document written using the Binary Formats can be translated _to_ DIS
29500."

Since DIS 29500 is M$OOXML, the only thing, as I read it, that M$ is ready to
allow any of us to do is to is to write a translator to translate _INTO_
M$OOXML! (Why would we want to do that??) If we write a program using these
specs that translates _FROM_ M$OOXML into something reasonable, such as ODF,
what do you want to bet we get sued for doing so? Also, this information could
be used to translate directly into, e.g., ODF, as well; but the same caveat
applies here, as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is the Con of the Century
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 17 2008 @ 09:41 PM EST
This is bait! Really simple stuff. When you have liars talk to you ... listen to what they don't say.
The "promise" is exactly what it says: Fear not! You will not be sued for the functionality of reading MS file formats ... but wait until we get a hold your neck when it comes to the rest of your program.
So no lawsuit for my spreadsheet program reading ms office files but for any other aspect the hundreds of other patents come creeping out.

Great! here do I sign up?

Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Says It Will Release Binary Office Formats - Which? -- Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 18 2008 @ 09:42 AM EST
there is always a catch with them and always will be.
repeat after me -

microsoft will never change
microsoft will never change
microsoft will never change

I just hope miguel and nat realize that before it is too late.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SO OOXML is not enough?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 25 2008 @ 12:10 AM EST
How curious.. The OOXMLSPECIFICATION is supposed to be the solution for
compatibility with the old binary formats.. So after all we need an open-source
PROGRAM as well? So what's the need for OOXML?

[ 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 )