EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.18.07

Bruce Byfield’s One-sided Piece on GNOME and OOXML

Posted in ECMA, Formats, GNOME, GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 10:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bruce Byfield has just published another article about the recent frictions that involve GNOME over its involvement in OOXML ‘hardening’. It is very obvious from this articles whose side he takes, just as Sam Varghese recently suggested. To quote him again:

Sadly, Schestowitz hardly got a word in edgeways. He found himself up against Waugh, Miller and Bruce Byfield (also from Linux.com – both Byfield and Miller were quite obviously biased towards Waugh’s point of view), and also Miguel de Icaza, the co-founder of the GNOME project, who phoned in and was allowed to stay on and speak whenever he felt so inclined.

Anyway, that’s old news, and almost nothing new is presented in this newer article (shades of Peter Galli from eWeek). Bruce still refuses to consider Microsoft is a factor despite seemingly infinite evidence. Moving ahead, let’s consider software patents again.

As repeated many time before, OOXML is a patent time bomb and it is incompatible with the GNU GPL.

The next time you ponder OOXML, think about Novell’s software patent deal with Microsoft. Ask yourself:

Using OOXML, am I ‘protected’ and therefore permitted to save my documents, on my computer, with my program (Free software is owned, as opposed to ‘rented’ using a licence). Is that even possible?

If the answer is no, which it probably is, then you know for a fact that OOXML is a proprietary format that embodies other types of risk.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

10 Comments

  1. rfrdt45 said,

    December 19, 2007 at 7:34 am

    Gravatar

    You’re a nutter.

  2. Bruce Byfield said,

    December 19, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Gravatar

    Roy:

    Why do you have the idea that anyone who is not in complete agreement with you is against you?

    I start the article by saying that “The tragedy of this controversy is not just that it is divisive, but that each side has a point,” and I grant points on both sides. Yet somehow you don’t seem to mention either of these facts.

    Instead, you seem more concerned that I don’t support your conspiracy ideas. You seem far more concerned with proving the Microsoft connection than you do with findng solutions to the situation.

    I don’t mind that you disagree with me. But can you at least do me the courtesy of disagreeing with what I actually said?

    - Bruce Byfield

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 19, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Gravatar

    Bruce,

    This wasn’t intended to be disrespectful. However, describing things as “conspiracies” is often a way of just writing them off. We’re talking about possible involvements here of people with conflicting interests (at the Foundation).

    You know that you that I respect you a lot, Bruce. I wrote this item because I didn’t feel that both sides were fairly (and equally) represented. This wasn’t the first time, either.

  4. Bruce Byfield said,

    December 19, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Gravatar

    Roy,

    I would be interested in hearing how you think the article could be more neutral. I acknowledge points on both sides, and suggest that both sides should modify their behavior and look for solutions rather than continue their antagonism.

    Other feedback suggests that it largely succeeds in being balanced, but if you think a particular point was misrepresented, you would do everyone a service by listing them.

    As for the use of “conspiracy,” what else would you call allegations of Microsoft, Novell, and the GNOME Foundation secretly getting together to promote OOXML? That sounds like a conspiracy to me.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 19, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    Gravatar

    Bruce,

    The headline of the article, in my humble opinion, is already an insinuation that there is a problem with critics. This isn’t about Jeff’s “half-truths” about myself because the criticism flows in a single direction.

    In a previous article, which was published in Linux.com, there was a headline that suggests “there’s no problem, nothing to see here, please move along”. Jeff and I never reached an agreement on the issue, but the article made it seem like the issue had been resolved.

    I would like to add that, just as I continue to discover each day, Microsoft is still paying for people’s love and that includes Open XML (OOXML).

    As a general remark, about Microsoft being irrelevant to GNU/Linux, I suggest you read about proxies Microsoft has used to launch lawsuits against Linux. As long as they attack Linux, I refuse to ignore what they are up to. Maybe that relates to Gates’ “Keep your enemies closer” advice and Andy Groves’ ““Only the paranoid survive“. I didn’t use to care about Microsoft, but the deeper I look inside Linux, the more often I find Microsoft’s involvements. They leave fingerprints. The Mandriva story in Nigeria is a good and recent example.

  6. Bruce Byfield said,

    December 20, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    Gravatar

    Roy:

    Your reading of the the titles is strange. The reference to half-truths colliding in the title of the Datamation article clearly suggests that the half-truths are on both sides.

    As for the other title, read in context of the article, it refers to the fact that both sides have a belief that what they are doing is right — but disagree on what “right” means in this situation. Anyway, even if read as you suggest, it doesn’t show bias against your position.

    As for your other comments, they have no relation to the Datamation article. Insofar as they refer to opinions that I’ve expressed in the past, they only show that you have failed to read my opinion accurately.

    What is missing from most of what you say is the sort of proof that would be needed in a legal case, or for a news source to publish and not get sued. In other words, you are dealing in supposition. They are interesting suppositions, and I take note of them, but mostly they are not credible.

    Even more to the point, in the case of the GNOME Foundation’s actions, they can only harm any attempt to modify or change what is happening. It would be much more to the point to concentrate on what the Foundation has actually been doing because that, unlike the chain of suppositions you have tried to build, is undeniable and can’t be used to discredit your beliefs.

    Incidentally, I can’t help smiling at the fact that, while you are busy accusing me of bias against your side, GNOME Foundation supporters are accuasing me of bias against their side. And they are just as wrong about my opinions as you are.

  7. htrztr said,

    December 20, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Gravatar

    For Roy, acknowledging that that the _other_ side (GNOME foundation) might also have a point is already ‘not neutral’. In other words, his truth is the only truth and who is not for him is against him. That’s what its like with religious extremists…

    Reminds me of Bush. These extremists are a shame for the whole of our community; certainly their understanding of ‘freedom’ is not mine. Roy, think of the words of Rosa Luxemburg: “Freedom always means the freedom of those who disagree with you.”

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

  8. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 20, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Gravatar

    htrztr,

    It is more complicated than this, for starters, to use an example from yesterday, there are some who are paid to agree or disagree. In other words, there is truth and there is truth for one’s wallet on the other hand. That, by the way, applies to Bush as well (since you brought this up). Truth is earned, not paid for (and there are no insinuations here, unless we’re talking about Novell).

  9. 9e9e9t9 said,

    December 21, 2007 at 8:28 am

    Gravatar

    Nonsense. You couldn’t make a single case of bribery stick.

    If by ‘paid’ you mean that M$ does PR work — this is what every company does; GET OVER IT!

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

  10. Roy Schestowitz said,

    December 22, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    Gravatar

    Bruce,

    To say more on the use of the word “conspiracy”, watch the first 30 seconds of the following video (not that I condone its message):

    In recent news, China imprisoned bloggers, putting in mental institutes because they blogged about the government. How familiar a technique to shoot the messenger. In Russia (also recently), journalists were accused of copyrights infringements and send to jail if they wrote critically about the government.

What Else is New


  1. From the Eastern District of Texas (US) to Australia Patent Quality Remains a Problem

    Patents on anything from thoughts to nature/life (in the US and in Australia, respectively) demonstrate the wildly wide range (or spectrum) of patents nowadays granted irrespective of their impact on innovation



  2. Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 and PTAB Are Here to Stay and Even Their Critics (Patent Maximalists) Have Come to Accept That

    Taking stock of the latest PTAB news and rants; the latter has become scarce because efforts to undermine PTAB have all failed



  3. Patent Trolls Roundup: Conversant Wireless Licensing (Formerly Core Wireless) and Blackbird 'Technologies' Still Prey on Real Companies

    A quick recap of recent decisions and motions, which serve to show that patent trolls can be beaten, avoided, and sometimes even 'disarmed'



  4. Links 19/8/2018: Skrooge 2.15.0, Wine 3.14, End of Akademy 2018

    Links for the day



  5. David Ruschke, the PTAB's Chief, is Moving So the Patent Maximalists Push Their Anti-PTAB Agenda

    As the chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) moves elsewhere at the USPTO there are those who hope that a replacement will undo PTAB inter partes reviews (IPRs), which generally improve the quality of granted patents



  6. If David Chiles Turned the USPTO Into a 'Microsoft Shop' That Might Explain Three Days (or More) of Outages

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is having profound technical issues; some already point their fingers at David Chiles, alleged to have been hired/promoted for the wrong reasons



  7. Links 17/8/2018: GNU/Linux From ASUS, Debian at 25, Lubuntu Plans

    Links for the day



  8. Links 16/8/2018: MAAS 2.4.1, Mesa 18.2 RC3

    Links for the day



  9. USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO

    The US patent office proposes charging/imposing on applicants that are not customers of Microsoft a penalty; there’s also an overtly and blatantly malicious move whose purpose is to discourage petitions against wrongly-granted (by the USPTO) patents



  10. The Demise of US Software Patents Continues at the Federal Circuit

    Software patents are rotting away in the United States; it remains to be seen when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will truly/fully honour 35 U.S.C. § 101 and stop granting such patents



  11. Almost Two Months After the ILO Ruling Staff Representative Brumme is Finally Back on the Job at EPO

    Ion Brumme gets his position at the EPO back, owing to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO-AT) ruling back in July; things, however, aren't rosy for the Office as a whole



  12. Links 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  13. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  14. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  15. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  16. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  17. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  18. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  19. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  20. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  21. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  22. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  23. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  24. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  25. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  26. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  27. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  28. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  29. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  30. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts