Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tarun

Microsoft's latest interoperability pledge: How free is 'open' now?

Recommended Posts

No move by Microsoft to share information with its competitors will ever be taken at face value, and certainly yesterday's new Interoperability Principle will come under very close scrutiny. Is this the opening of the floodgates the EC has been demanding?

In incremental, measured, if slow steps, Microsoft has made some efforts to comply with directives from the European Commission to make its software and protocols more interoperable with products from other manufacturers. Yesterday, the company surrendered one more boundary between its interoperability policy and the EC's dream situation, making a huge chunk of the information it published in response to the EC's order available to developers free of charge.

"We're announcing that developers will not need to take a license, or pay a royalty, or other fee to access any of that information," revealed CEO Steve Ballmer yesterday (according to Microsoft's transcript). "As an immediate first step to apply the principles today we're publishing to the Web over 30,000 pages of documentation for Windows client and server protocols that were previously available only under a 4D trade secret license. In addition, protocol documents for additional products like Office 2007 will be published in the upcoming months."

The company's newly published Interoperability Principle spells out the terms to which Ballmer referred: "Microsoft will publish its documentation for these Open Protocols and Open APIs on its website so that all developers will have the benefit of this technical information in a manner that takes advantage of the nature of open discussion on the web. Microsoft will not require developers to obtain a license, or to pay a royalty or other fee, to have access to all this information."

But free access, the Principle makes clear, does not mean free use. While Microsoft will no longer charge fees or royalties for parties seeking information on how to make their software interoperable, it may yet charge royalties for the way others use that information.

"Some of Microsoft's Open Protocols are covered by patents," reads the Principle. "Microsoft will indicate on its website which protocols are covered by Microsoft patents and will license all of these patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, at low royalty rates. To assist developers in clearly understanding whether or not Microsoft patents may apply to any of the protocols, Microsoft will make available a list of the specific Microsoft patents and patent applications that cover each protocol."

The use of APIs to access those protocols, however, will not require a license, even if the service with which software is communicating is itself protected by Microsoft patents. So the company is making it clear, interoperability will not require licenses or incur fees, but like operability (building a product using a design inspired by Microsoft's patented IP) may very well.

The Principle does specify the products to which it applies: "Windows Vista including the .NET Framework, Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008, Office 2007, Exchange 2007, and Office SharePoint Server 2007, and future versions of these products." Previous editions of those products were not listed.

But while Ballmer and others referred to Office 2007 interoperability yesterday, there actually was no mention of Open Document Format, the basis of competing applications suites and the first such format to receive international standardization. Microsoft did open up access -- or at least, open it up somewhat more -- to its principal current products, so it did specify the "to what" part of the change argument, to borrow Rep. Barbara Jordan's famous phrase once again. But it did not specify the "from what."

Thus the status of an ODF plug-in for Office 2007 was not clarified yesterday, even though some got the impression that's what Ballmer was referring to.

More calls on Microsoft to open up even more.

The absence of any such mention was not lost on Red Hat chief counsel Michael Cunningham, in a response posted to his company's Web site yesterday afternoon.

"Rather than pushing forward its proprietary, Windows-based formats for document processing, OOXML," Cunningham wrote, "Microsoft should embrace the existing ISO-approved, cross-platform industry standard for document processing, Open Document Format (ODF) at the International Standards Organization's meeting next week in Geneva. Microsoft, please demonstrate implementation of an existing international open standard now rather than make press announcements about intentions of future standards support."

But Linux Foundation board member and attorney Andrew Updegrove thought yesterday's announcement was about ODF, in a sense...for the way in which it skillfully omitted mention of it.

"With respect to ODF, it will be important to see what kind of plug ins are made available, how they may be deployed, and also how effective (or ineffective) those translators may be," Updegrove said yesterday, in a statement shared with BetaNews. "If they are not easy for individual Office users to install, or if their results are less than satisfactory, then this promise will sound hopeful but deliver little. I am disappointed that the press release does not, as I read it, indicate that Microsoft will ship Office with a 'save to' ODF option already installed. This means that ODF will continue to be virtually the only important document format that Office will not support 'out of the box."'

The fact that Microsoft's making any movement in this direction at all, Updegrove added, is an indication to him that "multiple market forces" -- which, he said, included the EC investigation and the popular uprising of ODF support -- "are pushing and pulling Microsoft in a direction that it would have been highly unlikely to travel otherwise."

Yesterday's statement from the European Commission apparently was intended to serve as a reminder to everyone, including Microsoft, that its definition of "interoperability" is deeper than the mere dissemination of APIs. It said its current investigations are focused on "the alleged illegal refusal by Microsoft to disclose sufficient interoperability information across a broad range of products, including information related to its Office suite, a number of its server products, and also in relation to the so called .NET Framework and on the question whether Microsoft's new file format Office Open XML, as implemented in Office, is sufficiently interoperable with competitors' products."

Microsoft's APIs, as defined yesterday, provide open access by software with other software for the purposes of sharing information and functionality -- which is actually the way professional developers typically understand APIs and interoperability to work. But the legal definition is often fuzzier, as indicated by the EC's reminder yesterday that Microsoft needs to make its OOXML file format -- as opposed to Office 2007, the software which utilizes the format -- "sufficiently interoperable."

That would require not an API as Ballmer describes it but a plug-in as Updegrove describes it. Microsoft has said it is participating with open, community efforts to produce such plug-ins, though critics continue to question why the company doesn't just produce one on its own. Backers of Microsoft's efforts pose the counter-argument that it shouldn't be Microsoft's responsibility to ensure one-to-one correlation between its own format and every other one that comes along, whether or not it's an international standard.

Source: BetaNews

Link: Lunarsoft Frontpage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft is trying todo the least possible.

It doesn't want to be open, it is just being forced to comply with European Commission. So it tries to comply, but just barely enough to get passed.'

Often to get the open specifications, you cant just read them on the internet on Microsoft's website, no you have to purchase them in papercopies for a large sum of money.

It is supposed to be open, but you have to agree to a license. That license often forbids open source implementations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with the "Backers of Microsoft's efforts" here. Has anyone asked the makers of Wordperfect to stand up to interoperability scrutiny? Anyone asked Apple to make the Quicktime format interoperable (I'd love to see the day...)?

You can't just jump on the back of the giant demanding that they comply with the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with the "Backers of Microsoft's efforts" here. Has anyone asked the makers of Wordperfect to stand up to interoperability scrutiny? Anyone asked Apple to make the Quicktime format interoperable (I'd love to see the day...)?

You can't just jump on the back of the giant demanding that they comply with the world.

Because nobody uses or cares about WordPerfect.

I am sure there are people who are not happy with QuickTime, among them - me.

Of course, people will will demand more from giants with products that are well known.

Yes, you can jump on the back of the giant demanding that they comply with the world.

People should be able to choose what software they use, there should be many products and people should be able to choose the one they want. There should be open formats and open protocols built upon open standards without vendor lock-in.

Software should be interoperable so that people can have a free choice of what to use. Anything else is anti-competitive and wrong.

The European Commission is doing the right thing. I hope they put more pressure and harder demands to ensure a healthy market with free competition, free choice, open standards and interoperability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People should be able to choose what software they use, there should be many products and people should be able to choose the one they want. There should be open formats and open protocols built upon open standards without vendor lock-in.

Software should be interoperable so that people can have a free choice of what to use. Anything else is anti-competitive and wrong.

The European Commission is doing the right thing. I hope they put more pressure and harder demands to ensure a healthy market with free competition, free choice, open standards and interoperability.

Actually... making these formats interoperable is making things less competitive. A file format has just as much impact on a product's performance as the program that runs it. When I moved over to Office 2007, I took a 150 page report that I had written in Word 2003 (came to about 4.7MB) and resaved it in .docx format. The result - 1.8MB. If you can release a product that saves over 60% in terms of disk space - that's your doing, and not something that you should be forced to share with the rest of the world.

Competition is what helps keep prices down and production quality up. By forcing the playing field to be level, you're infact going to end up driving costs up and productivity down. There's less reason for developers to make the best possible product.

Let me put this another way. What if we were to go to Coca-Cola and demand that they release the formula for what I believe is the world's most popular soft drink? What about WD-40? These companies would be absolutely destroyed, since their primary secret (and the only reason why they're in business) can now be made by just about anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually... making these formats interoperable is making things less competitive. A file format has just as much impact on a product's performance as the program that runs it. When I moved over to Office 2007, I took a 150 page report that I had written in Word 2003 (came to about 4.7MB) and resaved it in .docx format. The result - 1.8MB. If you can release a product that saves over 60% in terms of disk space - that's your doing, and not something that you should be forced to share with the rest of the world.

Competition is what helps keep prices down and production quality up. By forcing the playing field to be level, you're infact going to end up driving costs up and productivity down. There's less reason for developers to make the best possible product.

Let me put this another way. What if we were to go to Coca-Cola and demand that they release the formula for what I believe is the world's most popular soft drink? What about WD-40? These companies would be absolutely destroyed, since their primary secret (and the only reason why they're in business) can now be made by just about anyone.

No, interoperability doesn't make things less competitive. When the whole world uses a file format, it becomes impossible for someone else to compete with a product that has its own file format and is unable to read the commonly most known file format. When someone sends you a file, you would be required to install that program, so it wouldn't be very possible for someone to live without for example Microsoft Office, if there were no other software that could read that file format. And if you had a software with another file format, then it would be very difficult for you to send it to others, since they wouldn't be able to view it, without installing additional software, which they most likely would be reluctant todo.

You can't compare it with Coca-Cola because anybody can make a softdrink and sell it, there is no vendor lock-in effect.

Proprietary file formats actually harm competition. Thinking that it benefit competition is just absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...