Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Licensing of patents and copyright, and the word "additional"

since hAl and I have been discussing this via edit summaries¸ we might as well get it on the talk page:

I (and the lawyers who have come to the IETF to give advice) regard the IPR with regard to patents as being two independent issues:

• Copyright is the basis for the control over the text of the standard. The license given by the copyright holder (or the one who asserts copyright - there's a subtle difference) controls whether you can get a copy of the standard, and what you can do with the copy you have (read it, lend it to a friend, hand out copies on street corners, post it on the Internet, perform a public recitation of its text.....). This license gives you no right to do what the standard describes (but doesn't prevent you in any way either).
• Patents are the basis for control over whether you can practice the technology described in the standard. If a patent describes a technique that any conforming implementation of the standard has to do, you need a license from the patent holder in order to make products that implement the standard. The patent holder may have nothing to do with the copyright holder, and may even have had nothing to do with the work of producing the standard. (note - patent law permits you to make *one* copy for your own use without a license - the reason given in the US constitution for patents was that people should be able to learn from them.)

The two referents for the word "license" are entirely orthogonal - thus, I believe the word "additional" is not useful. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why I prefer additional. A patent license is not a patent on the format of the standard. The frasing might suggest that the standard or part of it are patented. I have seen several people claim such thing during the standardization proces. Comments like: "Micrsoft has patented parts of OOXML". However the patent license does not relate to the format or standard directly. The patent license is not a license for allowing use of the format or standard which is what many people percieve it to be. The patent licensing is not on the format but for any technology required to use or implement the format. It is a technology license and not a format license.

Sigh. "You need money to buy a car. You need a driver's license to drive it." You would insist on saying "additionally, you need a driver's license to drive it"? I wish that just one time, in one little issue, you would accept someone else's formulation. This is WP:OWN. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If I can just chime in for a second here, chaps. I haven't been around here long and I don't want to get into the habit of editing contentious articles, but it looks to me like the only problem here is the use of the word "additional" and the issue of confusion. You both agree that there aren't patented technologies in the standard itself, just some of the technologies that are required to implement it. So how about rewording the section to do just that? Royalty free licensing for any additional technologies required to implement the specification How about that? It's a little bit more verbose, and it does say pretty much the same thing as the sentence below it, so maybe that bit could change to explicitly address hAl's worries that people reading this will get the idea that the specification itself is patented. Sound good to you folks? Grumbox (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually there can't be patented technologies in the standard itself; the standard is words-on-paper, a technology on which the statute of limitations has long ago expired. Neither you, I nor hAl know (AFAIK) if there are patents required to practice the standard - Microsoft hasn't said that it holds any such patents, only that *if* they exist, they won't sue over them, and nobody else has said anything at all (as far as I know). My main problem is linguistic; "additional" implies two things that can be added together, and copyrights and patent rights just shouldn't be added together. They're orthogonal.

I think hAl and I are arguing the same side here - that we need to consider those two things separately. I'm in favour of words that emphasize the separation. But to me, the word "additional" does exactly the opposite. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do know of Microsoft patents that could apply to OOXML. (for instance http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-329645.html) However those patents might not be valid (the example has likely prior art) and/or night not be required. However it does not matter as those are royalty free licensed for OOXML (and for Opendocument as well). hAl (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is some liguistic issue and we seem to have a similar view. However my english is probably not good enough to find alternative phrasing that would make the point more clear for readers that have little understanding of IPR licensing. hAl (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)