Here are the conditions to read the content of the Czech Presidency's website:

How do I download documents from the website?

Next to the titles of the downloadable documents you can see the document type (word, pdf or other format) and its size.

* Acrobat Documents (.pdf)

If you want to download and read a pdf document, you need to have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer. You can download a free version of the programme here: www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/

* Microsoft Word Documents (.doc and .rtf)

In order to read a Word document, you need to have Microsoft Word or another piece of software that can read this type of documents installed on your computer. You can download a free version of the programme here: www.microsoft.com/downloads

* Microsoft Excel Documents (.xls)

In order to read an Excel document, you need to have Microsoft Excel or another piece of software that can read this type of documents installed on your computer. You can download a free version of the programme here: www.microsoft.com/downloads/

* PowerPoint Documents (.ppt)

In order to read a PowerPoint document, you need to have Microsoft PowerPoint or another piece of software that can read this type of documents installed on your computer. You can download a free version of the programme here: www.microsoft.com/downloads

No need to say that Microsoft is an official sponsor of the Czech Presidency:

"Cette évolution prévoit de diffuser également les sessions plénières sur le format ouvert ISMA V.2."

ISMAv2 uses h264, which is not really an open standard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing

Discussions are often held regarding the legality of free software implementations of codecs like H.264, especially concerning the legal use of GNU LGPL and GPL implementations of H.264 and other patented codecs. Consensus in discussions is that the allowable use depends on the laws of local jurisdictions. If operating or shipping a product in a country or group of countries where none of the patents covering H.264 apply, then using, for example, an LGPL implementation of the codec is not a problem: There is no conflict between the software license and the (non-existent) patent license.

Here is the list of contributors, the contributions will be published soon:

Your contributions

The draft document from which the final EIF V2.0 will be elaborated was available for external comments till the 22nd September.

IDABC has received 53 comments from various stakeholders:

1. ACT - Association for Competitive Technology
2. AETIC - Spanish Electronics, Information Technology and Telecommunications Industries Association
3. AFDEL - L’Association Française des Editeurs de Logiciels
4. Association des Petites Villes de France
5. ATIX - Viennese Professional Association of Information Technology
6. Bartlomiej Jesionkiewicz (citizen)
7. Bernd Kappenberg (citizen)
8. BITKOM - German Association for Information Technology, Telecommunications and New Media
9. BSA - Business Software Alliance
10. Capgemini
11. CEN Cultural Diversity Focus Group
12. CEN/ISSS Forum
13. CompTIA - Computing Technology Industry Association
14. COSS - Finnish Centre for Open Source Solutions
15. Dassault Systèmes
16. DIN - Standards Committee on Information Technology and Applications
17. Dr. Glyn Moody (citizen)
18. ECIS - European Committee for Interoperable Systems
19. EICTA - The European Information, Communications and Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Association
20. ESOMA - European Software Market Association
21. ETSI - The European Telecommunications Standards Institute
22. FASTeTEN - Fully Automated Secured Transactions services
23. GBO.Overheid
24. Gerard Freriks (citizen)
25. Gerry Gavigan (citizen)
26. Hollandopen
27. IASI-CNR - Istituto di Analisi dei Sistemi ed Informatica "Antonio Ruberti" - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
28. ICC - International Chamber of Commerce of Hungary
29. IDE net
30. Intellect - Information Technology Telecommunications and Electronics Association
31. Jukka Rannila (citizen)
32. LSB - Lithuanian Standards Board
33. Markku Oraviita (citizen)
34. Microsoft
35. National Technical University of Athens
36. Netherlands Normalization Institute
37. Nexor
38. Nicola Guarino (citizen)
39. Norwegian Research Council
40. Open Forum Europe
41. Open Standards Alliance
42. Oracle
43. Pensive SA
44. Philips
45. PLANET SA
46. RedHat
47. Serafin Casamayor Navarro (citizen)
48. Sergio Farruggia (citizen)
49. Slawomir Paszkowski and Rasmus Kirkegaard Mortensen (citizens)
50. Sun Microsystems
51. Universal Interoperability Council
52. VITAKO - German County Association
53. Will J Godfrey (citizen)

Subject: Speaking note_pétition open source_06112008

For your information, this is the statement pronounced by Pascal Paridans concerning Open Source software and the European Parliament policy on this, during the recent PETI meeting.
DL

Attachment: Speaking_note_pétition open source_06112008.doc

Monsieur le Président
Mesdames et Messieurs les députés

Je suis ici en l'absence du Directeur Général, pour représenter la
Direction générale ITEC (Innovation et support technologique) du Parlement
européen. A ce titre je répondrai aux points mentionnés dans la pétition en
vous informant de ce qui se fait au sein du Parlement en matière d'open
standard et open source.

Je puis tout d'abord vous assurer que le Parlement européen préconise et
favorise l'utilisation des standards ouverts et des solutions open source.

C'est en 2003 que la Direction des technologies de l'information a entamé
un processus de renouvellement complet du paysage informatique du Parlement
européen. Cela s'est traduit par un remplacement progressif des systèmes
propriétaires par d'autres issus de la communauté des logiciels libres (BEA
Weblogic vs JBoss, Borland vs Eclipse, Linux Redhat) pour n'en citer que
les plus importants.

A ce jour 100% de la plateforme de développement est basé sur le standard
ouvert JEE et basée principalement sur des solutions Open source. Cette
situation est remarquable vis-à-vis de structures comparables de notre
institution.

Nous sommes donc bien dans la logique demandée par la pétition et même
précurseurs puisque les orientations prises en 2003 ont été confirmées le
15 mars 2006 par le vote sur les orientations budgétaires pour 2007 du
Parlement européen pour nous lancer dans cette démarche de l'open source.

A ce jour, environ 60% du parc applicatifs est d'ores et déjà réécrit dans
le standard JEE, le reste est en cours de réécriture ou planifié.

Concernant le streaming des sessions plénières, la structure actuelle est
effectivement fortement liée à l'utilisation du format Microsoft (qui est
lisible toutefois sur différentes plateformes utilisateur)
Dans la même démarche que mentionnée précédemment, le Parlement européen a
lancé un projet qui reprend la refonte de son architecture de diffusion.
Cette évolution prévoit de diffuser également les sessions plénières sur le
format ouvert ISMA V.2. Ce qui, à nouveau, s'inscrit parfaitement avec la
demande exprimée dans la pétition. Les résultats de ce projet devraient
être accessibles au citoyen début 2009.

Concernant la soumission de document ODF par nos députés.
Le Parlement européen a toujours choisi une approche pragmatique qui
consiste à toujours privilégier la satisfaction des besoins métiers.
Il y a peu nous avons été contacté par M. Cappato, pour permettre la
soumission de document au format ODF. Nous devons reconnaître que lorsque
M. Cappato nous a contacté, la configuration standard sous tendant les
applications de la plénière, ne permettait pas d'accepter des formats du
type ODF.
Cette difficulté est à présent levée et tout député qui souhaite soumettre
un document en format ODF peut le faire.

Pour être complet sur ce domaine. Il est vrai que des améliorations sont
encore à prévoir notamment afin de permettre aux députés de communiquer en
format ODF aussi bien à la réception qu'à l'expédition vers les citoyens
européens.

Nous avons conscience de ce besoin.
Nous allons donc inscrire la validation et la mise en production d'une
solution permettant le traitement des fichiers ODF au niveau du poste de
travail standard des députés.
Ceci leur permettra de communiquer plus librement avec les citoyens
européens et sur base de standards ouverts.

Tous ces éléments démontrent bien que le parlement est actif dans les
domaines mentionnés dans la pétition.

Il est toutefois important de signaler que ces passages de format
propriétaire vers un format open sont des processus complexes et
progressifs qui ne peuvent se faire sans prendre en compte tous les
paramètres en jeu que sont notamment la complexité de l'architecture du
Parlement, la nécessité de maintenir sa cohérence et l'ancienneté de
certaines applications. Je voudrais à ce titre préciser que nous faisons
cohabiter Windows, Solaris, Linux, Oracle, Postgres, MySql, Adabas tout en
progressant vers une solution tout Open source et open standard

Par ailleurs , pour compléter cette description, je voudrais attirer votre
attention sur le fait que ce changement de stratégie (passage de systèmes
propriétaires au standard open source) amorcée comme je vous l'ai dit en
2003, s'est inscrit dans un environnement dans lequel le Parlement a vu son
pouvoir s'accroître en même temps qu'il a dû faire face à de nombreux défis
tels que les élargissements successifs et l'accroissement du nombre de
langues.
Ces éléments ont nécessité des choix informatiques primordiaux pour notre
institution, lui imposant de faire évoluer la structure de l'architecture
et des applications au même rythme tout en intégrant des plateformes open
source. Ceci a constitué un défi majeur que nous avons peut-être omis de
faire savoir.

Enfin je voudrais terminer en précisant que le changement des architectures
vers l'utilisation des standards ouverts et le passage à l'open source
exige des ressources humaines et financières mais également de
l'exactitude. Nous n'avons en effet pas le droit à l'erreur lorsque nous
effectuons une migration technologique. C'est pour cela que toute mise en
production demande du temps et de la précision qui se reflète d'ailleurs
dans nos contributions à la communauté des logiciels libres et dont
l'ensemble de la communauté internaute bénéficie.

Je vous remercie

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/11/11/1937223.shtml

http://www.openforumeurope.org/library/open-parliament/openforum-europe-response-to-open-parliament-petition-hearing-held-on-6-11-2008/

http://www.openparliament.eu/mep-calls-for-for-an-independant-legal-inquiry-on-the-use-of-open-source-and-open-standards-in-european-government

Open standards: the European Council refused to supply the contracts concluded with Microsoft
7 Novembre, 2008 - 10:29

Marco Cappato MEP asked the Council to provide him the contract concluded by the Council and Microsoft, and the Study on the Open Source realized by the interinstitutional committee on informatics in 2005. The Council refused to supply these documents. As the Council quoted these documents in an answer given to Cappato's written question on the adoption of open source facilities as support to the institution's work, Cappato claimed for these records.

The Council negative answer was motivated saying that "because these contracts establish specific terms and conditions for the European institutions, the divulgation of those information could jeopardize the protection of commercial interest of Microsoft. Acknowledging that the divulgations of the records are not backed by a clear public interest, the Secretariat general concludes that the protection of Microsoft's commercial interests, being one of the commercial partners of the European institutions, prevails on the divulgation for the public interest".

Regarding the Study made in 2005 the Council "has not keep any copy of the Study. The Secretariat general suggests to ask a copy to the interistututional committee on informatics' archives".

http://media.ffii.org/OpenParliament081106/

FFII is supporting the petition asking the European Parliament to adopt Open Standards:

Open Parliament is a petition for open standards use in the European Parliament as to enable non-discriminatory access for all European citizens to its representatives irrespective of software choices. "It is important that citizens enjoy the right to access government documents and to view parliamentary records without being required to buy the products of a particular vendor and that they can communicate with the authorities and their services independent of which software vendor they choose." writes FFII board member Georg Jakob in the letter to the MEPs and asks them to base their communications and documentation on open standards.

Here is the agenda for tomorrow:

Thursday, 6 November 2008, at 9.00 and at 15.00
PHS P4B001
rue Wiertz
BRUSSELS
DRAFT AGENDA

[…]

at 15 h.

[…]

Competition

25.
a.) N° 282/2008 by Graham Taylor (British), on behalf of OpenForumEurope, on the implications of ICT lock-in for participative democracy and for competition (in the presence of the petitioners): PETI20081106_sir282-08_EN
b.) N° 147/2008 by Klaus-Jürgen Sauer (German), on being required by the state to purchase Microsoft products:
PETI20081106_sir147-08_EN

There is also a discussion on the role of open standards in the afternoon somewhere in the Parliament (let's hope someone will record it):

Introduction:
Graham Taylor - OpenForum Europe

Economic Impact of Standards
Rishab Aiyer Gosh - Senior Researcher UNU-MERIT

Implementation of Open Standards policy in the Belgium public administration
Peter Strickx - DG Arquitecture & Standards, FEDICT, Belgium

Hugo Lueders, CompTIA

Statement of the Commission
DIGIT (Christos Ellinides)

Statement of the Parliament
DG ITEC

Note that Mr Lueders is a well-known Microsoft & Software Patents lobbyist, who wants to raise a patent tax on every EU citizen who wants to access governmental documents via discriminatory patented standards.

The OpenParliament has also drawn the attention of other Microsoft drones earlier on.

Domain ID:D117910110-LROR
Domain Name:VOICESFORINNOVATION.ORG
Created On:06-Mar-2006 23:49:37 UTC
Last Updated On:14-Nov-2007 00:21:24 UTC
Expiration Date:06-Mar-2009 23:49:37 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:tukvECSsFENx3T2h
Registrant Name:Microsoft Corporation
Registrant Organization:Microsoft Corporation
Registrant Street1:1 Microsoft Way
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Redmond
Registrant State/Province:WA
Registrant Postal Code:98052
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4258828080
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:moc.tfosorcim|sniamod#moc.tfosorcim|sniamod
Admin ID:tuDL7uzFQ4dKhN7B
Admin Name:Domain Administrator
Admin Organization:Microsoft Corporation
Admin Street1:1 Microsoft Way
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Redmond
Admin State/Province:WA
Admin Postal Code:98052
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.4258828080
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:moc.tfosorcim|sniamod#moc.tfosorcim|sniamod
Tech ID:tujg0bTKBMc8dcAJ
Tech Name:MSN Hostmaster
Tech Organization:Microsoft Corporation
Tech Street1:1 Microsoft Way
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Redmond
Tech State/Province:WA
Tech Postal Code:98052
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.4258828080
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:moc.tfosorcim|tshnsm#moc.tfosorcim|tshnsm
Name Server:NS1.MSFT.NET
Name Server:NS5.MSFT.NET
Name Server:NS2.MSFT.NET
Name Server:NS3.MSFT.NET
Name Server:NS4.MSFT.NET

From: Voices for Innovation [mailto:eu@voicesforinnovation.info]
Sent: 22. september 2008
Subject: Policy Alert: Open Source activists secure close to 100 signatures in effort to mandate OSS

Open Source activists secure close to 100 signatures in effort to mandate OSS

Over the past few weeks radical elements in the open source community have intensified their efforts in the European Parliament. They are attempting to significantly change the existing public procurement framework, which follows a policy of technology neutrality, by introducing an open source software preference.

The Parliament’s current approach reflects a much more balanced view, as it uses both proprietary and open source technology. The Members of the European Parliament (MEPs overseeing the Parliament’s IT spending follow the clear line that the Parliament’s IT procurement choices must be based on reasonable and objective criteria, such as “interoperability, cost/value for money, reliability, vendor support, ease of use and security”, thus ensuring the best value for tax payers money. If the Parliament moves away from this established policy we must fear that the choice available to both citizens and institutions will be significantly reduced, limiting the functionality and user-friendliness of the European Parliament’s portals.

Next week their efforts will intensify further, as they are planning to approach Members of the European Parliament with the view of signing and supporting a draft entitled “Written Declaration on the use of Open-source software”. The draft has been tabled for consideration by MEPs in May and calls on the Parliament to migrate its entire computer network to Open Source software as a means to tackle the digital divide in Europe. Open Source proponents need to collect signatures of the 50% +1 Members of the European Parliament by next Thursday. At the moment they are far from reaching that number – clearly as many of the MEPs have seen through the ploy of masking an attempt to change the procurement policy of an institution, with a cause benefiting the disadvantaged members of our society.

It is unclear how the proponents of this draft Declaration draw a link between implementing an ‘Open-source software only’ policy in the European Parliament and confronting the challenges of the digital divide. The major challenges of the digital divide are widely regarded to be the consequence of limited access, poverty, social exclusion, personal factors (age, disability) or education and skills gaps. The exclusion of proprietary software models could potentially result in a significant increase of people without access to technology – thus achieving the exact opposite of what they set out to do - increasing the digital divide in Europe.

In order to address these challenges, governments, industry (including proprietary and OSS vendors) and civil society are already working together to drive greater awareness of the benefits of technology and investing in e-skills and education across the populations – see for example the European Alliance on Skills for Employability. The main goal of the Alliance is to help better co-ordinate industry and community investments, services and other offerings, dialogue and engagement with NGOs and public authorities in a way that enhances the positive impact of ICT literacy and professional training on employability prospects of the young, the disabled, older workers and other unemployed or under-employed people throughout the European Union – thereby seeking to address the digital divide.

The Written declaration therefore falls short of doing anything about its stated objective. In fact it does something much more radical, which many of the ones signing it might well not have been aware of – it drastically changes the procurement policies of European institutions, effectively excluding all but OSS solutions from its use.

Should you be interested in presenting an opinion to your local Member of Parliament please contact ofni.noitavonnirofseciov|ue#ofni.noitavonnirofseciov|ue

More information will be posted up on the following website https://www.voicesforinnovation.org/

Links to the written declaration can be found on the European Commission’s website http://osor.eu/news/meps-petition-european-parliament-switch-to-open-source

Here is the resolution in plain text:

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2004- 2009

19.5.2008

0046/2008

WRITTEN DECLARATION
pursuant to Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure by Jean Louis Cottigny, Pierre Pribetich, Michel Rocard, Bronisław Geremek and Daniel Cohn-Bendit on the use of open source software

Lapse date: 25.9.2008

DC\721370EN.doc
PE406.962v01-00
EN

0046/2008 Written declaration on the use of open source software

The European Parliament, – having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. having regard to the growing disparities in access to information and communication technologies in the European Union, reflected in the establishment of a digital divide, a new cause of social disparity which further excludes an already vulnerable population,

B. whereas these new technologies have become an essential tool in areas as varied as employment, education, information etc.,

C. whereas European citizens have the inalienable right freely to access documents and information from the institutions which represent them,

D. whereas the use of open source software is one of the effective ways of reducing this digital divide and whereas this solution, established by some Member States in their administrations, delivers significant results,

1. Calls on the European Union to take the necessary measures to help finance public research on open source software;

2. Calls for Parliament to switch its whole computer network to this type of software;

3. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the parliaments of the Member States, the Council and the Commission, so that they may join forces on this measure.

http://www.europarltv.europa.eu/ supplies video in two primary formats. Our content is primarily streamed in Windows Media Video format and Flash Video. To support our video players, you must be using a PC running a standard Microsoft Operating system or an Apple Mac. We currently fully support our video on Internet Explorer, Firefox and Safari browsers on both the PC and Mac.

This is the webpage I got by visiting the Configuration Helping page:

Configuration
Operating system : Linux - undefined
Browser : Firefox - 3.0
Windows Media Player : not detected (version false)
QuickTime : not detected (version false)
Mozilla ActiveX control and plugin support : not detected
Windows Media Player Firefox Plugin : not detected
Players and plugins
Other browser : message to be defined

They also invite people who are not happy to file petitions:

How do I email Members or the President of the European Parliament?

The current composition of the European Parliament is set out under "Members of the European Parliament" - in alphabetical order or searchable by country, group, committee, … or a combination of these criteria. This information covers all - but only - the current MEPs and is updated daily. Email addresses are given only for those MEPs who wish them to be published. It is however possible to send a Petition to the European Parliament via email on the official form - but please read the relevant Help page first!

So let's start a petition then.

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1104

(iv) Open Standards

121. Among technology standards, there is particular interest for “open standards”. While there is no universally accepted definition of that term, all open standards have the following common characteristics: (i) the specification is publicly available without cost or for a reasonable fee to any interested party; (ii) any IP rights necessary to implement the standard are available to all implementers on RAND terms, either with or without payment of a reasonable royalty or fee; and (iii) the specification should be in sufficient detail to enable a complete understanding of its scope and purpose and to enable competing implementations by multiple vendors. Some define open standards as publicly available technical specifications that have been established in a voluntary, consensus-driven, transparent and open process, others appear to add to this definition the requirement that an open standard has to be available royalty-free. The defenders of the first definition favor patent policies on a RAND basis, which they believe to maximize flexibility through a commitment to license combined with the right of patent holders to receive reasonable and adequate compensation for their sharing of their technology, and trust in the co-existence of this model and a royalty-free model. They also question how, in a royalty-free environment, investments in research and development could be maintained in the long run and how a broad participation in standard-setting processes could be maintained. On the other hand, the advocates of the latter approach are convinced that society as a whole would benefit from the open and royalty-free access to standards, as it is the case, for example, in the Internet context, which had been established precisely in order to allow the free publication and retrieval of information from the web. According to them, this model would best ensure interoperability, greater innovation and consumer welfare. In addition, they argue that, even where a royalty-free policy is adopted, the benefit of standardization may outweigh the loss of royalty income in certain technologies, simply through greater quantities of a certain product being sold.

122. In this context, the notion of “open source” is often mentioned, but it should not be confused with open standards. While open standards are technical specifications developed in transparent and open processes and are available for implementation on reasonable and non discriminatory terms, but not necessarily royalty free, “open source” rather refers to a software distribution model based on an IPR, mainly copyright. Generally speaking, open-source software refers to software for which the source code (underlying programming code) is made freely available for use, reading the code, changing it or developing further versions of the software, including adding amendments to it (see sub-Chapter (c)(i) below for further details regarding open source). While open source software has been used to implement some ICT standards, other standards are implemented through proprietary software or, as is increasingly the case, through the use of mixed platforms that combine both open source and proprietary software. When governments and other users are in the process of selecting a specific technology to meet their needs for interoperability and/or free use of that technology, in addition to the open or proprietary nature of any software involved, factors such as overall costs, the maturity of the technology, and the support offered, should be taken into account.

According to Groklaw, also Denmark has objected:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080531134006167

PJ also discusses what happens next and how the complaints relate to ISO's code of ethics.

Letter To The Editor

We need to work together on live streaming challenge
Published: Friday 23 May 2008
Jonathan Zuck, President, Association for Competitive Technology

Sir,

Regarding 'Parliament under pressure for shunning free software':

While we sympathise with the FFII petition to the European Parliament
on streaming plenary sessions, we are equally concerned about broad
categorical mandates with regard to software procurement. While the
notion of "non-discrimination" is worthy, the idea of mandates is a
slippery slope. If I only have a slow modem connection in my home,
should I circulate a petition to prevent the distribution of broadband
content by the Parliament because it is discriminatory? In truth,
there are free alternatives for viewing Widows Media including
TurboLinux, Xine, Real and InterVideo.

Obviously the agenda here is political and not the public clamouring
to watch more plenaries on their computers but contrary to the
rhetoric of a vocal minority, commercial software is not the
playground of big business, but primarily of inventive SMEs thriving
in niche markets. Only the protection of their intellectual property
permits those small business innovators to create growth and jobs.

Commercial software must therefore be allowed to compete on a
level-playing field with other software types. Public procurement
decisions should be based on technology neutrality, allowing
governments to buy software on its merit and not through categorical
preferences. To advise otherwise is to demand the imposition of one
business model over another.

As technologists, let's work together to devise a solution to the
streaming challenge presented to the Parliament that does not involve
overthrowing a solid technology but is creative in delivering that
technology to a broader audience.

Jonathan Zuck

President

Association for Competitive Technology ( ACT external )

Washington and Brussels

To correct the article of EurActiv, the 2 petitions are not about free software adoption, but well about free and open standards, which are not the same as free software. So the article of EurActiv misses the point and has a confusing title.

Mr Zuck is also mentioning the possibility to decode the WMV format with other applications then Microsoft Windows Media Player:

In truth, there are free alternatives for viewing Widows Media including TurboLinux, Xine, Real and InterVideo.

We need to be precise about what reasonable and non-discriminatory actually means. A restaurant in apartheid South Africa said it allowed both Boers and English, so was "not discriminatory". It even let some Jews in. However it banned non-whites.

Reasonable and non-discriminatory in patent licensing means "we apply a uniform fee". However with respect to Microsoft's legacy OOXML format, one party controls the standard and the associated patents. All market players need to license except the patent owner. For dominant standards it is a tax on the market. It seems highly unreasonable that such standards should become international standards, mandatory for government users.

You may find it unreasonable for an ubiquitous standard. But there is a more insidious aspect. RAND patent licensing conditions are a tool to ban Free Software, which is entirely incompatible with RAND licensing conditions. Now one side of the debate blames it on the patent licensing conditions, the other side on the software licensing conditions.

The reason I agree with the statement about patents and Free Software not mixing is that there have been terms written into GPL licenses that explicitly conflict with software patents. Okay, that is the choice of the authors and users of those licenses.

It sounds a bit like: well, you chose to marry an African woman, so we cannot let you into the restaurant. Free choice, right?

Yes, Matusow calls his standards with RAND conditions "open standards" and contradicts the commonly accepted definition of "open standards". We should speak about shared standards. These shared standards appear to discriminate less, but they still discriminate against the only real competitor to Microsoft's hegemony.

It is true that ISO, driven by simple pragmatism, allows shared standards. From the ISO/IEC directives:

14.1 If, in exceptional situations, technical reasons justify such a step, there is no objection in principle to preparing an International Standard in terms which include the use of items covered by patent rights – defined as patents, utility models and other statutory rights based on inventions, including any published applications for any of the foregoing – even if the terms of the standard are such that there are no alternative means of compliance.

Generally international standards and patents are like water and oil, and RAND conditions are the soap that allow them to mix. But as the move towards Open Standards evolves, shared standards get more and more unacceptable. Shared standards do discriminate and do appear to be unreasonable.

It is time to adapt the legal definition of reasonable and non-discriminatory to common sense.