I spent 22 years as the chairman of what is now ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34. SC34 is the committee that standardized SGML in the 1980s and now is responsible for both ODF, supported by many open-source products, and OOXML, the XML released by Microsoft in response to ODF. Neither ODF nor OOXML has anything to do with ODA/ODIF, which have been dormant since the turn of the current century but were still under development in the 1990s in a committee that was parallel to the one that became SC34.

Our past analysis: OOXML is a response. Thank you very much for the confirmation. Stronger language from Mason found in this article.

I would argue the politically correct term is "NPE" = Non-practicing entity but… I am looking forward to buy i4i's word processor.

I am still curious what effects would be caused when the ISO standard OOXML format is patent encumbered but I hope the company will be so smart and agree with the EU on an opt-out provision in case of submarine patents.

We’ll be hosting another DII workshop soon, and this one will be of special interest to those who want to understand the inner workings of MCE (Markup Compatibility and Extensibility) as defined in Part 3 of ISO/IEC 29500. We’ve used MCE for new functionality in documents created by Office 2010, and members of SC34 WG4 have expressed interest in understanding the details of our implementation. So we’re planning a workshop in Redmond on Friday, September 18, the day after the upcoming SC34 plenary in nearby Bellevue, to do a deep-dive review of how Office 2010 uses MCE.

A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell one of its flagship products, Word, in the United States because of patent infringement. …Judge Leonard Davis.. ordered 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 an announcement by the plaintiff, Toronto-based i4i Inc.

i4i? Ah, the world famous inventor of the "Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other" which is so basic to our digital societies?

PERMANENT INJUNCTION
In accordance with the Court’s contemporaneously issued memorandum opinion and order
in this case, Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following
actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more
than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing
and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any
infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future
Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
This injunction also does not apply to any of the above actions wherein any of the Infringing
and Future Word Products, upon opening an XML file, applies a custom tranform that removes all
custom XML elements.
This injunction further does not apply to Microsoft providing support or assistance to anyone
that describes how to use any of the infringing products to open an XML file containing custom
XML if that product was licensed or sold before the date this injunction takes effect.
This injunction becomes effective 60 days from the date of this order.
__________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of August, 2009.

Patent problems

We may add that while Microsoft always pays lip service to patent reform and patent quality, it effectively obstructed even moderate steps of pragmatic reform in the field of software patenting with massive lobbying investment and an ideological agenda. An ideological motivation you don't find among all the other players which have a real business. The massive lobbying also applies to colonial attitudes towards patent regimes of third nations in which the American company operates, or the European Union, our main area of operations as the FFII e.V. Ironically Microsoft itself is a favourite target of troll challenges and no one knows how much profits Marshall Phelps actually generates by selling their Microsoft FAT patents. In the spectacular case of TomTom we were told it was a very small amount. Some American critics as Brian Kahin speak of a patent bubble of low value patents but how is it going to burst? When you have a licensing business a good patent is one that hurts. Maybe the Encyclopedia Brittannica is an example, it failed commercially and now became an (unsuccesful) patent enforcement agency against actual market players.

In the recent referral G03/08 about software patentability an European Patent Office case named T 424/03 (Microsoft) was center to the debate. Find the Amicus letters here. Currently you also have a pending referral on Bilski in the US Supreme Court which is more far reaching than software. In the US many examination tests were dismantled such as the machine or transformation box test which opened the flood gates and unbalanced the system. It was reintroduced under the Bilski ruling but appealed at the supreme court. The Bilski test does not rule out software or business method patents but provides means to reduce the pressure within the examination system in later stages.

First you wreck the law, then the trolls wreck you.

Software Patents are a pain for market players of all sizes. In Europe some people from the FFII Community run a new Petition and we also prepare an international effort. The FFII, a charity under German law financed by membership fees and donations, has a lot of expertise and proposals on how to overcome the current troll problems and improve the examination and litigation system. Unfortunately learning the hard way does not guarantee a quick learning process.

What does it mean to Open XML?

Right now ISO/IEC 29500 ("OOXML") is patent encumbered and cannot be called an "open standard" according to conventional definitions and looks unusable for the public sector. Microsoft's own patents and lack of licensing clarity were a real concern, but i4i's enforcement efforts are on another level. ISO Open XML is currently in a critical situation as you can expect more enforcement attempts of i4i to follow in order to sqeeze money out of the market, in particular once Microsoft is forced to pay. On the other hand Microsoft will be forced to use all legal means to get rid of the patent. We need to keep a close eye on the upcoming developments but i4i may not prevail.

Expect the FFII, Eurolinux and many others to fight for that.

• European Petition: Stopsoftwarepatents.eu
• FFII Website FFII e.V. and FFII website for "Groff" text processing tools

Hier mal ein Text aus eigener Feder - die Weiterverwendung stelle ich frei,
ist erwünscht und hiermit gestattet, Adaption erlaubt, Referenz erwünscht:

Wie bekannt hat sich der Microsoft-Konzern, zusammen mit 3 Partner im
Rahmen der Open XML Formats Developer Group, sehr darum bemüht
ein von ihm selbst entworfenes Dokumentenformat unter dem Namen
"Office Open XML", kurz OOXML, im Dezember 2006 der ISO,
also der führenden Organisation für internationale Standardisierung,
zur Fortentwicklung und Absegnung mittels deren Verfahren an zu tragen.

Nach ersten Schritten, bei denen zahlreiche externe Kritiker auf die
generelle Inkonsistenz, Definitionsprobleme und so manche Unvollständigkeit
sowie auf allgemeine Unzulänglichkeiten hingewiesen hatten, ist dem
Vorschlag
trotzdem die Ehre zuteil geworden die ersten Hürden genommen zu haben
und in die höheren Stufen der Normen-Entwicklung vordringen zu dürfen.

Wie nun Benjamin Henrion, bekannter Gegner von Softwarepatenten unter
dem Dach des FFII, nun auf den Seiten der Initiative <NO>OOXML bekannt
gibt
(http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-174349/800-pages-of-defect-for-ooxml-here-it-is)
umfasst die jüngste Stellungnahme in Form eines Fehlerberichts nicht weniger
als 800 Seiten und präsentiert auch umgehend das zugehörige Dokument.
Das Dokument dürfte für Außenstehende regulär eigentlich nicht verfügbar
sein,
mithin handelt es sich also um eine Veröffentlichung die auf grauen
Wegen statt fand.
Henrion beklagt in diesem Zusammenhang eine gewisse Web- und Blog-Scheue
der ISO.

Das Dokument selbst datiert auf den 1. August 2009. Angesichts des nun schon
mehrere Jahre andauernden Bearbeitungsprozesses in den Reihen der ISO
erweckt solch ein dickes Werk keineswegs den Eindruck von Konvergenz und
damit besondere Zuversicht in eine baldige erfolgreiche Verabschiedung.
Eher mag man unter diesen Umständen den Wortmeldungen der Kritiker
aus der Anfangsphase durchaus zugeneigt sein, wie etwa 2007 auf dem
OesterBlog
diese nur 10 Kernpunkte umfassende Aufstellung mit Erläuterungen von
Problemen
(http://web.oesterchat.com/2007/09/05/probleme-mit-ooxml/). Was die ISO nun
vorgelegt hat übertrifft den Umfang dieser frühen Ansicht wohl um
Zehnerpotenzen.

Angesichts weiterer Patent-Anmeldungen von Microsoft im Dokumentenbereich
(http://www.heise.de/ix/XML-Patent-fuer-Microsoft--/news/meldung/143170),
darüber hinaus gehende Bemühungen um die Teilnahme an
Standardisierungsmaßnahmen
im Web-Bereich um das angehende HTML 5 herum
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/HTML-5-Microsoft-will-mitreden--/meldung/143253)
sowie harscher Kritik von Seiten IBM
(http://www.heise.de/ix/XML-Patent-fuer-Microsoft--/news/meldung/143170)
als auch von zahlreichen Regierungen nicht ganz unbedeutender Staaten
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Neuer-Protest-gegen-ISO-Zertifizierung-von-Microsofts-OOXML--/meldung/115301)
am hier recht eigentümlichen ISO Prozess tauchen natürlich Fragen auf.
So könnten sich staatliche Stellen, wie auch gewerbliche und private
Anwender
durchaus die Frage stellen, welche Qualität die althergebrachten
proprietären
Dokumentenstandards aus dem Hause Microsoft denn haben könnten, wenn
schon der bislang scheinbar beste Versuch zur Normierung eines Formats
aus dem gleichen Hause kaum in der Lage zu sein scheint die dafür nötigen
Anforderungen auch nach Jahren der Arbeit daran auch nur halbwegs zu
erfüllen.

Es bleibt letztendlich mehr als fraglich ob sich diese Norm für die Welt
hilfreich ist.
Gemessen am Aufwand für eine Umsetzung in Software steht schließlich
schon seit Mai 2005 mit dem OpenDocument-Format, kurz ODF,
ein klarer Sieger fest, der schon längst die ISO-Weihen genossen hat und
derzeit
bereits ohne viel Aufhebens hin zur Version 1.1 novelliert wird. Dies
nicht zuletzt
wegen der über 400 unterstützenden Unternehmen aus aller Welt in der
zugehörigen
Entwickler-Initiative "Open Document Format Alliance" sowie zahlreichen
existierenden
und gemeinhin tauglich funktionierenden Implementierungen, allen voran
die freie
Umsetzung im Rahmen von OpenOffice.org ab Version 2.0 (aktuell ist
Release 3.1).
Die praktizierte Übernahme in zahlreiche nationale Standards und vor
allem die
Übernahme als Vorgabe für die jeweiligen Verwaltungen schufen massiv Fakten.

Alexander Stohr
D-88131 Lindau (Bodensee)

The recommendation from Microsoft is that users roll back to an earlier version. So here is the official workaround for Office users:

• Remove Office manually, reinstall Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac from the original installation media, and then upgrade to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update. Do not upgrade to Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac Service Pack 2 (12.2.0) from Microsoft AutoUpdate.
• Use Time Machine to roll back to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update or an earlier version.
• Convert your document to .doc, .xls, or .ppt, by using Open XML Converter.

There is a more simple fix: Open file formats as ODF and more competition. Maybe you'd better try other word processors for instance Openoffice for Mac or Neooffice?

If you have time to read it, there are probably nice bits in there.

Microsoft will be the "social host" of the Seattle meetings, hosting the reception and dinner, etc. They will also be organizing a Document Interoperability Initiative (DII) event to occur the day after the SC34 Plenary, at Microsoft, to announce how they intent to support Office 2010 as extensions to OOXML.

The previous DII event organised by Microsoft in Brussels was basically a meeting of the Microsoft ecosystem.

Here is the announcement of the meeting on the SC34 website:

For general questions about Westin meeting logistics, or things to do around Seattle, please contact Dave Welsh, moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd#moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd, cell phone +1 206 313 0879.

[…]

More hotel options, at different rates, are also available. For more hotel options in the immediate Bellevue area and the Seattle vicinity, please try Live.com.

[…]

Located in downtown Bellevue, just twenty minutes outside Seattle, The Westin Bellevue is situated minutes from major corporate offices including Microsoft, Nintendo of America, T-Mobile, and Expedia.

You can expect a lot of people member of the Microsoft ecosystem at the next SC34 meeting in Redmond.

A word processor including a native XML file format is provided. The well formed XML file fully represents the word-processor document, and fully supports 100% of word-processor's rich formatting. There are no feature losses when saving the word-processor documents as XML. A published XSD file defines all the rules behind the word-processor's XML file format. Hints may be provided within the XML associated files providing applications that understand XML a shortcut to understanding some of the features provided by the word-processor. The word-processing document is stored in a single XML file. Additionally, manipulation of word-processing documents may be done on computing devices that do not include the word-processor itself.

Inventors: Jones; Brian M. (Redmond, WA), Bishop; Andrew K. (Redmond, WA), Snyder; Daniel R. (Bellevue, WA), Sawicki; Marcin (Kirkland, WA), Little; Robert A. (Redmond, WA), Krueger; Anthony D. (Woodinville, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.: 11/005,183
Filed: December 6, 2004

Brussels, 22nd May 2008
Antitrust: Commission takes note of Microsoft's announcement on supporting ODF in Office

The European Commission has taken note of Microsoft's announcement on 21st May concerning supporting ODF in Office. The Commission would welcome any step that Microsoft took towards genuine interoperability, more consumer choice and less vendor lock-in. In its ongoing antitrust investigation concerning interoperability with Microsoft Office (see MEMO/08/19), the Commission will investigate whether the announced support of ODF (OpenDocument format) in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/324&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html

"If there is a deliberate attempt to obstruct competition we will sooner or later see the competition authorities march in." Indeed. Note that I would rather have written "As there is a deliberate attempt…". But my concern is that this could take some time to happen. There is therefore a case for mounting the pressure without waiting. This being said, I agree that most of the effort must remain focused on broadening the adoption of ODF, and only smart investments should be directed towards Microsoft tricks against interoperability.

The best thing to do is to move on and ensure broad public adoption of ODF and open standards.

If there is a deliberate attempt to obstruct competition we will sooner or later see the competition authorities march in. There is no need to be reactive. Pressure can be easily mounted with small and smart investments.

This being said, I don't know if a petition is the most efficient way to reach the goal. This is just a proposal, and better ideas are welcome. But I think we cannot simply wait and see.

That’s the plan for next week. A harder-hitting press release with Fact Sheet. Stay tuned!

The supporters of ODF should react to this. I therefore propose the following actions:

- Ask the ODF Alliance to publish a press release recommending not using the "Save as ODF" facility included MS Office SP2, due to the bad quality of the produced ODF files.

The ODF Alliance issued a press release on 28-Apr-09 saying:

The ODF Alliance today welcomed the release of Microsoft’s Service Pack 2 for Office 2007, a software update that provides long-awaited support for the OpenDocument Format (ODF), while cautioning governments to evaluate the new software to ensure sufficient interoperability with other ODF-supporting applications.
[…]
"Microsoft has dragged its feet for over three years now. The key test will be whether Microsoft’s support for ODF plays well with other ODF-supporting software,” continued Marcich. “Governments will want to further evaluate the support for ODF provided by Microsoft and whether it sufficiently meets their needs for greater openness and interoperability.”

The initial tests made by Rob Weir shows the very bad interoperability delivered, and I think that a warning to the users is deserved.

- Start a petition asking Microsoft to make MS Office SP2 unavailable until the design flaws in the product have been corrected.

We must make it clear to Microsoft that their attitude is not acceptable, and force them to behave in a better way.

Would it work to promote OOXML and the next generation ooxml implementations (let us coin them code name "Greenhorn")? eWeek's Larry Seltzer:

Obviously, Microsoft would like to have us all move to the new formats, mostly by virtue of moving to Office 2007, but that's not happening soon and Microsoft's not making us do it. In fact, Office 2003 will be getting security updates for five more years, until April 8, 2014, the same date security fixes for Windows XP will end.

Needless to say that this is about the implementation. He is speaking here about earlier implementations to support the format. He talks about support for the format as such.

…the damage from targeted attacks can be immense, and many users may be exposed. If Microsoft is going to claim to support the old formats for five more years, it needs to make security updates for them a high priority for five more years.

You can be sure that the corpus of existing binary document formats will be continued to be supported. The only revelevant question is if the next generation will be OOXML or ODF.

Will we listen to the binary insecurity tune to force customers to upgrade?

Whether OOXML Wins Or Not, Older MS Docs Aren't Safe

Here is another one to sell the next Office generation: the old binary formats are not "open". Diabolic laughter included.

29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by Corrigendum or by Amendment

Defects in ISO/IEC 29500:2008
Explanation of whether to resolve defects
by Corrigendum or by Amendment
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG4
2009-03-26
[…]

However, ISO/IEC 29500 is a very large and complex multi-part standard, and it is not surprising that the text contains many unintentional technical defects, which nevertheless don't make it impossible to implement the standard.

In the course of drafting, some existing office document features were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing documents in ISO/IEC 29500.

The corpus of existing documents probably means Office 2007 documents, which is an undocumented file format.

Here is the email I sent to the SC34 chairman:

From Benjamin Henrion <gro.iiff|noirnehb#gro.iiff|noirnehb>
to moc.liamg|12homas#moc.liamg|12homas
date Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:53 PM
subject Definition of an "existing document"

Dear Chairman of SC34,

I would like to submit a request and a comment by having read the
following text:

0036(pdf) 29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by
Corrigendum or by Amendment

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2009-0036.pdf

"In the course of drafting, some existing office document features
were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it
being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing
documents in ISO/IEC 29500."

Can you provide a definition of what an "existing documents" means?

Best regards,

—
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403

Let's have a look what definition they provide.