Digital Majority: Public letter concerning "interoperability" of Tineke Egyedi

Utils

The articles and comments on this site reflect the views and opinions of their authors and do not represent an official statement by the FFII or the admins of this site. All content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License.

This is innovation?

Recent stories

1265818281|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — Alvaro asks 9 questions to the Commission about ACTA, including 3 strikes and transparency: Alexander Alvaro (ALDE) has asked 9 questions about ACTA, including 3 strikes and transparency, or the access by the INTA committee to the drafts documents. He is also asking about changes to substantive patent law (read software patents here). (Comments: 0)

1265717153|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — Members of European Parliaments ask when they will receive the ACTA documents: Some Member of the European Parliament have asked when they will receive the ACTA documents, mentioning the Lisbon Treaty article 218 which says that the Parliament have to be "fully informed" of the negotiations. The new trade commissioner Karel DeGucht said previously that the Lisbon Treaty do not apply to ACTA, because the confidentiality of the talks were negotiated before. (Comments: 1)

1254917669|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — FFII and IP Justice file Bilski Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court: The Foundation for a Free Informational Infrastructure (FFII) and IP Justice filed an Amicus Curiae Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case Bilski v. Kappos is expected to become a landmark ruling on the future of the U.S. patent system. The joint Brief explains the interlink of software and business methods, and points out alternatives to the so called Machine-or-Transformation test used for categorizing patents. (Comments: 0)

1251930625|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — IBM says software patents drive OSS development: In its Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court on the Bilski case, IBM is arguing that "patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code [...] which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development." (Comments: 1)

1247054084|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — What's wrong with the United Patent Litigation System (UPLS)?: A journalist of WorldIPReview recently asked FFII what were its views of the proposed United Patent Litigation System (UPLS), which is now being questioned by the Council in a submission to the ECJ. FFII had already published a press release mentioning the new push for software patents in Europe via a centralised and trusted court. (Comments: 0)

1246642471|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — The Bilski test was invented by IBM: By reading the Amicus Brief of IBM to the CAFC, it is pretty clear that the machine tranformation test which allows software patents and ban business method patents was invented by IBM lawyers. (Comments: 1)

1245674081|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — USPTO refuses to disclose Bilski's pending patent application: The US Supreme Court will soon hear Bilski on why software and business method patents are so good for the US economy. I was trying to find out where the Bilski's pending patent application was published, and I ended up writing to the new USPTO President and ex-IBM David Kappos. I finally got an answer from a USPTO official that the Bilski's pending patent application cannot be seen by the public. (Comments: 0)

1244544547|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — Patent expert Alison Crofts says EPLA is pushed by pro-software patents lobby: In its edition of IP Value 2007, the Intellectual Asset Magazine (IAM) was publishing an article about the Reform of European Patent System, where an expert mentions that the push for the EPLA is coming from the pro-software patents lobby. (Comments: 0)

1244147053|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — European Patent Office refuses spanish amicus brief against software patents: Alberto Barrionuevo, CEO of the small spanish software company OpenTIA and ex-president of the FFII, had submitted an amicus brief to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in spanish. The European Patent Office has notified him that they are refusing his letter because it was not written in one of the 3 official languages of the EPO. (Comments: 0)

1242135050|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — European Commission pushes for software patents via a trusted court: The European Commission is pushing for software patents via a centralised trusted patent court that would be created with the United Patent Litigation System (UPLS), an international treaty that would remove national courts. This court system would be shielded against any review by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Thus patent judges would have the last word on software patents. (Comments: 5)

1240399523|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — Conference on "Make software patents work for SMEs": The European Commission is organising a conference dedicated to "Make IPR work for SMEs" next Monday in Brussels. You can here submit your questions for next Monday on how to "Make software patents work for SMEs". (Comments: 2)

1240230341|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z — Stallman: "The EPO is a corrupt and malicious organisation which should not exist": Last Wednesday, farmers and software developers were demonstrating in Munich in front of the European Patent Office. Richard Stallman was describing the European Patent Office as a "corrupt and malicious organisation which should not exist". (Comments: 0)

Interoperability between multi-vendor OOXML applications

Current discussions on open standards highlight that multiple implementations are an important sign that standards are really open (see presentations by Rishab Gosh and by Thiru Balasubramaniam[5]). Regarding ISO's OOXML, the contention is that no company has yet implemented the full standard, not even its primary sponsor Microsoft; and that the six thousand page specification is too complex and too inconsistent to implement. Are these contentions true? If not, governments will want more than verbal claims to the contrary. Moreover, they can easily be countered with third party conformance and interoperability tests, including a plug-test event with multiple OOXML-compliant IT vendors.

Interoperability between ODF applications

All major vendors, Microsoft included, have agreed to support ODF ISO/IEC 26300, or are already doing so. That is, the availability of multiple implementations is not a problem here. Moreover, interestingly, two weeks ago OASIS initiated a technical committee to organize conformance and interoperability tests. Given its scope[6], this committee will provide transparency to governments about the degree of conformance of applications to ODF and the interoperability of ODF-documents. Less clear is whether the committee also intends to address interoperability between standards versions, or more general: what policy it has on standards change[7]. To my knowledge, such policies have not yet been defined by any standards consortium or standards body. They would befit the area of civil ICT standards.

The OASIS committee explicitly does not address "identifying or commenting on particular implementations" or any certification activities. Government procurement officers will ultimately need testing at this level and want to involve an independent third party testing centre for this purpose. Moreover, OASIS, too, might at a later stage want to involve an independent third party in order to avoid credibility problems.

Having two overlapping standards brings about its own problems, as testifies a review of current ad hoc solutions - converters, translators, plug-ins - to re-create compatibility between ODF-products and Microsoft's partial implementation of the OOXML standard[8]. Those who develop a low quality and overlapping standard, qualifications which also OOXML supporters use, are not the ones who pay for the consequences. Regrettably, citizens will be paying the price for lack of interoperability.

Although there is no formal accountability to fall back upon in standardization[9], those who initiated the duplicating effort may feel a - corporate social - responsibility for what happened. Their help is needed to shift interoperability costs from governments and citizens (post hoc) back to IT vendors (ex ante), the source of the interoperability problem. As a start, will they fully cooperate and support OASIS' initiative of conformance and interoperability testing? Are they prepared to shoulder the costs of independent, third party conformance and interoperability tests, tests that are needed to assure governments that no unexpected problems will arise ex post?

Kind regards,

Tineke Egyedi

Delft University of Technology

________

[1] K. Jakobs (2008). The IEEE 802.11 WLAN installation at RWTH Aachen University: A case of voluntary vendor lock-in. In Egyedi & Blind (Eds.), The dynamics of standards (pp. 99-116). Elgar.

[2] See e.g. the recent hearing in European parliament

[3] Standards Edge conference on Public procurement Brussels, 6-7 November 2008. See Jan Stedehouder's blog

[4] More specifically: ISO/IEC JTC1, a joint technical committee that focuses on IT.

[5] Standards Edge conference. See also the draft Agreement on Procurement and Support for Interoperability and Open Standards, to be discussed at the IGF meeting in Hyderabad, India, December 3-6, 2008

[6] The scope of OASIS ODF Interoperability and Conformance (OIC) TC includes "Initially and periodically thereafter, to review the current state of conformance and interoperability among a number of ODF implementations; To produce reports on overall trends in conformance and interoperability that note areas of accomplishment as well as areas needing improvement (…")

[7] Ibid. The dynamics of standards. 2008. Elgar

[8] See also http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3439/5585#PEGCSO

[9] M.H. Sherif et al. (2007). 'Standards of quality and quality of standards for Telecommunications and Information Technologies'. In Hörlesberger, et al.(Eds.). Challenges in the Management of New Technologies. World Scientific Publishing Company, pp. 427-447.

Digital Majority

Navigation

Utils

This is innovation?

Bookmark

Recent stories