Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents

On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 03:06:45PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > Fully irrelevant, since in one case it's mere workload, and in the other
> > case it's double the workload + restricted information + mathmatical and
> > date errors.
> We need to implement support for the date issue if we want to be able to
> get folks to move to our office suite from MS Office anyways.   
> As for the mathematical errors, those have been blown out of proportion:
> If you want to drown in a glass of water, go ahead, but they are minor
> issues as outlined on the post above.

Ah, but you are so informed... do you know a YES vote WITH COMMENTS has
no meaning of any kind of obligation at all? If it has to be corrected
it has to be voted NO WITH COMMENTS.
> > Unlike OOXML, CSS2 is fully royalty free, please compare apple with
> > apples, instead of apples with oranges.
> The OSP is also royalty free, where did it say its not?   Do you have
> formal legal advise that the OSP is not enough, or is this a conjecture
> from the blogosphere?

Well, according to the OSP, the OSP does NOT cover the full breadth of
OOXML specification.

Do you consider the
blogosphere, or is that just a negative remark towards all bloggers,
including you?

> > > > True standards can't rely on hidden information (with special agreements
> > > > that need to be signed with Microsoft for certain parts of OOXML,
> > > > as has been found in a document Microsoft was forced to disclose in Spain).
> > > 
> > > Which information is this?    There have been accusations made about
> > > this hidden information, but they have turned out to be bogus.
> > 
> > Really?
> > 
> > What patents are involved? Can you list them for us since you seem to
> > know? How does Microsoft's attitude towards patents compare with
> > ?
> We are not talking about Microsoft general attitudes, we are talking
> about the specifics of this standard, and this standard is explicitly
> listed in the Microsoft Open Specification Promise and has very precise
> terms.   

Well, Microsoft's attitude has been to gear up in order to use their
patent arsenal. Right now, there'se that Promise which has precise but
lacking terms.

> > MS Word 2000 Table Style Rules, can you point them out?
> I do not, but it is flagged on the standard as deprecated.   You could
> bring this up at the ISO meeting if you are really concerned about it.

Oh, that's just *one* element of many which alone are a reason for NO
WITH COMMENTS, since YES WITH COMMENTS is meaningless. And I'll be sure
to table it at my countries ISO meeting.

> > > The closest I have heard of were the OLE tags for embedding OLE objects,
> > > and those are present in ODF as well.
> > 
> > Funny to see you campaining for Microsoft's fake-standard, or are you
> > "Miguel de Icaza" the slashdot troll? It's always hard to tell when you
> > don't digitally sign messages...
> > 
> > So I keep wondering.
> I would like to stick to the issues and stay away from ad-hominen
> attacks.

I didn't attack you, only that idiot troll who claims to be you. Unless
this is not really you, I can't tell... why take it so personally?
Because I called it fake-standard?


Today is Setting Orange, the 49th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]