On Nov 19, 2003, at 10:59 PM, Alan Dayley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 19 November 2003 10:16 pm, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> Let me try this. The schema is not source code. It is just a rigorous
>> form of documentation. MS isn't showing you any code from Word or
>> authorizing you to use any. You still have to write your own code to
>> parse the .doc Document, display it, accept user input in the form of
>> edits, and save the modified document. Since you don't have any access
>> to MS's code, you can't possibly have an issue with *copyright*.
>
> Correct. My code is my code, copyright by me.
>
>> However your program may employ methods that duplicate those of Word
>> which might cause a problem with *patent*. Except that "...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."
>
> But, the code is a "licensed implementation" of Microsoft's patent. I
> own the
> copyright on the code but Microsoft owns the patent on what the code
> does.
> (Assuming the patent is valid, but that is another debate.)
>
> So, can "make, use, sell" and so on, my "licensed implementation" but
> I have
> no controlling rights on what the code does.
Always assuming that MS does indeed have a valid patent. Note that even
MS does not assert that they *do* have any valid patents, only that
they *may* now or sometime in the future. >
>> So all MS is doing here is saying that they won't sue you for *patent
>> infrigement* if your code uses some method that Office also uses.
>> Nobody is talking about copyright at all.
>>
>> As far as copyright goes, you own the copyright to the code you wrote.
>> You can license it however you like.
>
> Here is where it gets difficult. The code is copyright by me but the
> patent
> license does not allow me to sublicense the patent. So if I use
> copyright
> law to GPL my copyrighted code, is that a sublicense of the patent
> license?
I don't think so. In fact I would go so far as to say that you could
also apply for patents on the methods that you use in your code. After
all, you can't really know whether your methods are the same as
Microsoft's method. Maybe you need to do it because otherwise I might
patent your method and start charging you a royalty. ;-) >
> This is a perfect example of why software patents are so bad! I own
> the
> copyright to my code but the methods it implements are patented by MS.
> Who
> then has the controlling "intelectual property?" Does my copyright
> out weigh
> their patent? Do you have the money to fight MS and find out? Does
> any Free
> Software project have the money to go to court and find out?
> Microsoft has
> the money to enforce their patent and they know it!
I agree that it just becomes a mess when the USPTO starts allowing for
patents on software and business methods and all sorts of things that
aren't devices. It doesn't do anything but enrich lawyers.
>> Consider pdf and rtf. Both are considered open formats because there
>> is
>> a published spec. You are free study the spec and write your own
>> reader/editor. This doesn't mean that you are free to copy the code
>> out
>> of Acrobat that writes .pdf or the code out of Word that handles .rtf.
>
> But, is the format patented? MS with this patent license on software
> is
> purposefully mixing copyright and patent concepts. It would cost two
> boat
> loads of money or an act of Congress to clear the confusion.
I'm no defender of the business practices of Microsoft but I honestly
think that in this case the patent stuff is defensive language. And
it's not like MS doesn't *need* to be defensive when it comes to
patents. They have been burned badly. >
>> Adobe has also applied for patents on the methods embodied in Acrobat.
>> That doesn't keep me from releasing my own program for reading pdf
>> format under whatever license I want.
>
> That is fine. But does their license prohibit sublicensing? The MS
> XML
> schema patent license does.
>
>> You did make me curious to see how Adobe's patent license compares to
>> MicroSoft's. I'm DLing it now.
>
> I would like to know how it compares also.
I turns out that I got the Adobe docs in the new compressed PDF. So I
need to go get a new reader. What do you want to bet that Adobe has
filed for patent on the compression method? >
> I am also watching for any reactions from FSF or some other "law
> smart" group
> to perhaps add more intelligence to this discussion than I have.
It's becoming clear that MS agreed to 'open' the office formats to
comply with laws in Europe and South America requiring governments to
use open standards. They obviously have satisfied Denmark at least.
I'm sure the FSF is not going to be happy. Not until MS starts calling
the program GNU/Office. I am curious about what some of the more
objective folks, like the OSI, will say.
(text/plain)