Posted on 09/29/2005 6:03:01 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
David Berlind over at ZDNet wrote a remarkable article called Did Microsoft send the wrong guy to Massachusetts' ODF hearing?. If you missed this article, you'll have missed the equivalent of what Intel's Andy Grove called an inflection point. This one has the potential to have more impact than the release of the first Pentium processor.
...
Microsoft has essentially alienated the rest of the IT industry. I can't remember a single company that had so many people working in harmony against it, including IBM at the height of its arrogance. The Java Community Process provides just one example of an industry working again a company.
(Excerpt) Read more at onlamp.com ...
It's called the big picture. Funny how some claim it's all coincidence.
It's not a lwa. Find another approach to your MS kiting.
Why aren't Apple's products being considered by Mass?
No they are using XML, they are most certainly not using ODF. A list of applications that do implement ODF can bee seen Here
"The OpenDocument specification is available for free download and use. The specification is licensable under reciprocal, royalty-free terms by any party. Reciprocal, royalty-free licensing terms are being promoted by some standards developing organizations, such as the W3C and OASIS, as a method for avoiding conflict over intellectual property concerns while still promoting innovation. In short, anyone can implement OpenDocument, without restraint, and as shown below both proprietary and open source software programs implement the format."
All of this is in contrast with the competing "Microsoft Office Open XML" developed by Microsoft. Microsoft has released their format royalty-free, but with additional conditions not imposed by OpenDocument. Independent analysts have stated that Microsoft's licensing requirements will prevent many competitors from ever implementing Microsoft's format. The extent of this incompatibility is the source of significant controversy between Microsoft and other parties. The text below attempts to capture these differences, since they are often one of the reasons people consider using OpenDocument.
"Groklaw posted a legal analysis by Marbux, a retired lawyer, whose detailed analysis found that Microsoft's specification excluded competition, in contast with Microsoft's public claims. "Competitors are... effectively precluded from bidding against Microsoft or its suppliers for any... contract specifying use of Microsoft's software file formats." He first noted that the patent license for the format "is structured to be read restrictively, in Microsoft's favor... it states that: 'All rights not expressly granted in this license are reserved by Microsoft. No additional rights are granted by implication or estoppel or otherwise.' This is not the customary 'all rights reserved' phrase more commonly encountered... If you cannot find words in the license explicitly stating that you have the right to do something, you don't get that right." Then, by examining the patent license in detail, he found a number of ommissions and conditions that suppress competition: there is no integration clause, no license for the schemas themselves, no grant of copyright was included in the patent license, no commitment to delivering any future changes to the schemas or right to develop software implementing them under the same or more liberal license (this particular issue may have been resolved later by Microsoft), no identification of the Microsoft patents involved, no identification of third-party patents, no right to sell or sublicense implementing software, a prohibition against sale and licensing of implementing software, a prohibition against software having functions other than to read and write files using the specification without modification, no license to convert files to and from other formats, no right to write files using the schemas, vagueness and ambiguities will deter implementation by developers and adoption by end users, and a discriminatory incompatibility with F/OSS licensing, and discriminatory incompatibility with proprietary software competitors. In short, he believes Microsoft's license prohibits effective competition from using the format."
Their Office suite will be, please explain if you feel otherwise.
Really?
You mean..... Those technologies were not created because of the ease of copying that a computer offered?
You're right about "DRM" though, I'm referring to the new trusted computing scheme which incorporates a specific chip onto a board, among other things.
LOL, like anyone with a brain believes what Jokelaw has trotted out by some supposed lawyer who probably doesn't even exist. Find a respectable firm saying anything close to that, and it might dignify a response.
Are you telling me that I won't be able to walk into a Best Buy in Boston and buy a copy of Office?
How?
No, the policy mandate is for all state owned and operated computers. From what I understand.
You're welcome. I'm glad you went and did a little research on your own as well, as nobody in any forum is gonna be 100% correct.
^^^^^^^^^So I guess I'm not a thief.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're a potential thief, and we can't have that. Either way it's *your* fault even if you haven't stolen yet, and not their fault for making horrible "music".
You'll be locked out under your nose, and even those who wish to make legit copies will be screwed.
And the real kicker is that the next time you buy a computer, you'll have paid for it.
Just like this, having liberals in government prohibit any software formats that include patents, thereby restricting their potential use. Open source or especially free software is an anathema to intellectual property rights, especially patents.
There are exceptions to every rule.
"you get what you pay for" has it's own.
That's free software. You don't have huge corporations and governments using it if it's hard to use and/or lacking a huge number of necessary features.
It depends on what their goals are.
Moving to apple would definately lower their long term costs by lowering the need for as much maintenance.
But the short term cost of hardware for apple's proprietary stuff can get large. Not only that, but this move would close many doors. It would open some, but it goes right back to what their goals are.
They could use their existing hardware infrastructure with this move. Very minimal costs in that respect.
The only cost is training which would exist in any switch. In alot of ways, Open office is easier to use.
LOL
Open source or especially free software is an anathema to intellectual property rights, especially patents.
Nah, mostly it's anathema to Microsoft's sense of entitlement to a revenue stream. Too bad so sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.