On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:49 PM, justin joseph <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Ajay Pal Singh Atwal > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2009/12/24 Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Sudev Barar <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> 2009/12/24 Guru गुरु <[email protected]>: > >>> > Microsoft was accused by i4i of infringing on a 1998 XML patent in > its Word > >>> > 2003 and Word 2007 programs. Word uses XML, or the Extensible Markup > >>> > Language, to open .XML, .DOCX, and .DOCM files.The initial ruling in > the > >>> > court dispute between i4i and Microsoft was made in August. At that > time > >>> > >>> Can any one comment what this may do to the document standards that M$ > >>> was pushing vis ODF? > >> > >> Can anyone comment on how quickly this ban can be enforced in India? It > may help with our efforts to get state governments to remove specifications > (implicit or otherwise) for proprietary software when releasing > tenders/orders. > > > > I am not sure if US patents laws regarding software are applicable in > India. But MS being a US company (and functioning under US laws) may on its > own withdraw/ replace the version of the office suite for sale in India. > The HT report says clearly that as far as they are concerned, this is only applicable in the US. I think we need to file a charge at any police station and raid any shop, preferably an official authorised branded shop, selling the impugned software, as India is a signatory to TRIPS and should comply with attempts to prevent breaches of global law. > > This is what they are doing is what I read on the BBC. The specific > feature is to be removed and they have mostly > done so in anticipation of this judgment. I think MS claimed that the > feature was less used. > The 'feature' is the ability to open .xml, .docx, and .docm files. It helps the application open its own files, and that is a little used feature? Do people who buy MS Word use it to open OpenOffice files? That might make a nice headline. So they needed a workaround, having fallen into their own 'proprietary' trap, and chose to suborn the global standards process in order to achieve this purpose. > > But like Sudev asked, has this feature got into the the document > standard and what are the implications therein? > Which document standard? Features other than the above? Analyses welcome. -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
