Microsoft Charity Comes With Hidden Poison
Tony Sivori
Microsoft Creates a Stir in Its Work With the U.N.
The chairman of the Microsoft Corporation, Bill Gates, won widespread
applause in January when he trumpeted an agreement to give $1 billion in
software and cash to the United Nations as part of a job-training program
for the developing world.
But Microsoft did not seek any attention for a much smaller amount that it
contributed earlier to pay some travel expenses for a United Nations
business standards group.
That payment, critics say, had a much more opportunistic motive than the
big donation.
Several software industry executives and technologists contend that
Microsoft has been moving behind the scenes to undercut support for a set
of business-to-business electronic transaction standards jointly developed
by the United Nations and an industry-sponsored international standards
group.
[...]
The previously hidden dispute may seem arcane, but it revolves around
computing standards that are likely to help determine control over an
emerging generation of Web services software that is designed to automate
buying and selling through networks of computer connections. Many industry
executives predict that the new software will ultimately supplant computer
operating systems as the linchpin of the industry.
This new fight is occurring as Microsoft, the world's largest software
company, moves to the final stages of its legal dispute with antitrust
regulators in Europe over its right to integrate features of its
competitors' products into its Windows operating system. On another front,
Microsoft is being challenged by an array of open-source programs -
starting with Linux but expanding to other arenas - that are being
developed by a loosely organized group of software programmers and
distributed at little or no cost.
"Microsoft would love to live in a proprietary world," said Robert J.
Glushko, director of the Center for Document Engineering at the University
of California at Berkeley and an initiator of the ebXML standards effort.
"They are finding it difficult to live in a standards-based world."
More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/technology/23soft.html
(free registration required)
--
Tony Sivori
Travis 'Bailo' Bickel
> From today's New York Times:
>
> Microsoft Creates a Stir in Its Work With the U.N.
>
> The chairman of the Microsoft Corporation, Bill Gates, won widespread
> applause in January when he trumpeted an agreement to give $1 billion in
> software and cash to the United Nations as part of a job-training program
> for the developing world.
Hah! As if they didn't ship enough jobs to India already.
> That payment, critics say, had a much more opportunistic motive than the
> big donation.
Wake up and smell the manure. BG has already linked his /help/ for
children with AIDs to Windos marketshare and government support Micro-crap
policies. Did you expect anything less disgusting?
--
Kent Crazy B.V.
paul cooke
Hash: SHA1
Tony Sivori wrote:
this is what their patent for their xml document processing with office 2003
is really about... tying the online processing of b2b ordering exclusively
to word2003 xml documents for the convenience of their customers...
They want to introduce a system of b2b order processing that uses xml
documents as the exchange medium and the processing of those xml documents
will be covered by their patent. Therefore anything which hasn't licensed
the technology from them will be locked out. Note also that software that
has licensing terms like GPL is automatically prevented from using the
patent by the terms of the patent's technology license.
<http://www.adtmag.com/print.asp?id=8550>
|This whole Patent License business is a bit troubling to me, as it starts
|off by saying "Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that
|are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute
|software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft
|specifications for the Office Schemas." It then goes on to say "Except as
|provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under
|Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and
|otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of
|reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for
|the Office Schemas." You need to display a license notice, you can't
|sublicense, and "You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed
|Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms
|and conditions of this license."
|
|Also, within the schema license itself you'll find this language: "No right
|to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted
|herein."
|
|So where's the problem? Well, first off, it seems possible that the bit
|about not being licensed to distribute under other license terms bit in the
|Patent License is a clause designed to prevent application that use the Gnu
|General Public License (GPL) from implementing Office XML compatibility.
- --
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAOhCHNclAUt2HMX8RAk+dAJwJf3Yycfx/1fsYx6cZ6OJ0j8J0bgCfYqd7
x6hTiu9YPw4KqBxdmODXRPM=
=7vaK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Billy O'Connor
> the technology from them will be locked out. Note also that software that
> has licensing terms like GPL is automatically prevented from using the
> patent by the terms of the patent's technology license.
Fortunately the existence of prior art with respect to the processing
of text documents with XML renders the micros~1 patent laughably
invalid. A fitting example of software patents in general. Someone
in the NZ patent office just didn't understand what micros~1 was
trying to patent, as I'm sure the patent application was couched in
terms of the highest micros~1speak. No reflection on the NZ patent
office, the redmond marketing machine could sell space heaters to
Satan.
Bo Grimes
wrote:
> the redmond marketing machine could sell space heaters to Satan.
That's funny, but, Satan, being Satan, and understanding evil irony,
might buy them just to crank up the heat on those who sold them to him
when they arrive. :-)
Bo G
Linønut
> terms of the highest micros~1speak. No reflection on the NZ patent
> office, the redmond marketing machine could sell space heaters to
> Satan.
No, Bill would just have Maintenance pull some out of storage.
--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!
Peter
wrote:
>Fortunately the existence of prior art with respect to the processing
>of text documents with XML renders the micros~1 patent laughably
>invalid. A fitting example of software patents in general. Someone
>in the NZ patent office just didn't understand what micros~1 was
>trying to patent, as I'm sure the patent application was couched in
>terms of the highest micros~1speak. No reflection on the NZ patent
>office, the redmond marketing machine could sell space heaters to
>Satan.
The NZ patent office and its legislation is just a sick joke. They
are falling for patenting stuff that should not be patented. 99%+
patent applications would be from overseas, *real* local inventions
would make up a small part of their work.
The Government recognises patent laws need reviewing, but is at
present in political 'damage control' mode.
Billy O'Connor
> The NZ patent office and its legislation is just a sick joke. They
> are falling for patenting stuff that should not be patented. 99%+
> patent applications would be from overseas, *real* local inventions
> would make up a small part of their work.
> The Government recognises patent laws need reviewing, but is at
> present in political 'damage control' mode.
Well, that's good news, it would be bad if they thought everything
was fine. At least they're aware that there are problems.