Massachusetts, Microsoft, and Open Document Format Standards

Updated (19-Sep-2005, 15:00 PDT): Moved the discussion to a new blog entry here.  This first entry was very much a roll-up and initial thoughts on the announcement.  Now we're moving into "Phase II" and the framing debates.  I felt it needed additional context in a new entry. 
Updated (13-Sep-2005, 16:17 PDT): Added more blog and press entries to the end.
Updated (12-Sep-2005, 00:25 PDT): Added a number of other blog and press references. Cleaned up an opinion that Matt Asay pointed out was confusing. I also (hopefully) clarify that opinion here.

A lot has been reported and blogged about the recent announcement from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning a move towards the recently ratified OASIS OpenDocument format. 

Essentially, the Commonwealth published their desire to move to freely available standards and specifications, choose the standards they want to use, and have requested industry comments back.  As they chose OpenDocument and Adobe's PDF, everyone is looking at this as a slap in the face to Microsoft.

There is lots of debate and commentary.  Microsoft has said it won't support OpenDocument in the next release of Microsoft Office.  They've tried to point out that OpenDocument is inferior as a format, that the Microsoft Office XML are freely licenseable, and that the next release is about compatibility with older Office formats. 

Stephen O'Grady (RedMonk) has an excellent commentary based on an interview covering the ground with Allan Yates of Microsoft.  Stephen also responds to Matt Asay's commentary.  I have to agree with Stephen on this one.  David Wheeler also has excellent commentary here. 

Microsoft's commentary is fairly predictable.  Mike Champion blog debates with Stephen here, and Brian Jones has comments on Aug 31 and September 5.  Stephen O'Grady's responses are all great. 

Brian Jones expresses surprise and confusion based on the royalty free patent license Microsoft offers on their Office XML schema.  Of course, while the patent license for the Microsoft Office XML formats is royalty free, the license is not sublicensable (preventing a free software GPL licensed implementation).  (The Groklaw commentary gets into this issue as well as David Wheeler's commentary.)

Observations:

• I first commented in May of this year that the threat to Microsoft's hegemony wasn't the Linux desktop but rather OpenOffice on Windows, that Microsoft would try to battle it by claiming superior technology and innovation, and the role the OASIS standard would play.  Clearly the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is moving in this direction, but so it appears is the City of Munich.  While they still try to struggle with their Linux desktop decision, "Some departments will start with OpenOffice on Windows, ...."  So it begins.
• Microsoft appears to remain confused about standards and patents.  Standards exist by definition to encourage multiple implementations of a technology.  This is regardless of who defines them: whether government sponsored and recognized organizations, industry associations, or even more narrowly focused technology consortia.  Patents exist to protect a single implementation.  By definition standards and patents exist to serve different functions in the economic spectrum. A patent is a tax on the standard.  No participant wants such a tax, or perhaps a better way to say this is that any participant that has a patent that reads on a standard needs to determine whether or not the tax will slow the adoption of the standard, and whether or not the economic goals served by the standard are more valuable to the patent holder. Yes I appreciate the Microsoft patent license is royalty free, but it is the Microsoft point of view that these assets still need to be strictly protected that is the problem. 
• The patent license is absolutely designed to prevent GPL implementations.  Before attributing malice here, consider the following.  If a patent is allowed to be sublicensed (enabling a GPL implementation), then when the software that implements the patent is used downstream for a different purpose, and the GPL attaches to that software (and so on), then the scope of the patent can "creep", and the patent holder can loose control of the patent and the ability to license it differently (possibly for a royalty) or prevent others using the invention in different circumstances where they might want or need to be less generous with their protected asset.  If you were a very conservative lawyer (and working for a large legal target like Microsoft appears to engender that in their legal team), then this loss of patent control is a scary thing.  I have no idea if lawyers can develop a license that would enable GPL implementations but scope them to strictly the royalty free use desired.  (IANAL.)  The GPL would actually support the downstream scoping if I am guessing correctly.  You see, the GPL says you need all the rights to distribute the software, or cease distribution.  If the patent rights you hold are strictly to implement the standard, then you can implement the standard, but if you try to use the GPL licensed software for any other purpose, the GPL prevents it. 
• I find it ironic that when Microsoft has been confronted in the past with governments trying to develop open source software preference policies, they (rightly in my opinion) argue that the government shouldn't care how the software was developed and licensed, but rather focus procurement policy on software acquisition against standards.  Now that they have a government behaving exactly as they have requested, they are claiming that governments should focus procurement policy only on standards that Microsoft already supports, or de facto technologies that they sell, i.e. the status quo. 
• Microsoft is still confused about why customers buy things. Customers don't buy innovation.  They buy solutions to problems.  The government has a problem, and determined a solution, and Microsoft could support that solution, but would rather try to tell the customer that they don't understand their own problem space, and should keep giving Microsoft money for innovations, regardless of the problems the customer wants to solve.  It's the "we know best what's right for you" defense, and Microsoft still doesn't appreciate how arrogant it sounds. 
• I pretended to be Novell the other day.  I'll pretend to be Microsoft now.  If I was Microsoft, I would publicly state that we had reconsidered the customer's position (after meeting with them), and that while we have confidence in the integrated innovation (blah blah blah ... fill in marketspeak here about great new Office features... blah blah blah), they will support ODF.  They may not be able to add it in the current time table for the next release of Office, and delaying the release for the feature would be unfriendly to their shareholders.  But it could certainly be made available shortly after in a service pack.  And then deliver it.  If Microsoft is genuinely delivering huge value for other features that solve problems, they will still out sell all the competition.  They'll appear responsive and responsible.  And the discussion will move on.

I commend the Commonwealth on its move.  It has some short term pain, but should show a lot of benefits in the long term.  This is how I would want my government to spend my tax dollars — take the long view, and do the hard work to serve my needs best. 

The reporting trail and additional blogs:

• 1 Sept., CNet's Martin LaMonica's "Massachusetts to adopt open desktop" on ZDnet.  Covers the initial announcement from the Commonwealth.
• 2 Sept., Paula Rooney "Microsoft Blasts Massachusetts' XML Policy" on Information Week.  The first reporting back from the Microsoft point-of-view.
• 2 Sept., Boston Globe coverage "State May Drop Office Software".  The local coverage. 
• 5 Sept., Tom Espiner, "Legal Worries led Massachusetts to open standards" on ZDnet.  The Commonwealth responds back to the Microsoft news cycle.
• 8 Sept., David Coursey "Massachusetts' Move to Open Format is Closed-Minded" on eWeek.  A few things he gets very incorrect.  Some good opinions however when he points out both that Microsoft should support ODF as well as open their own formats further.
• 8 Sept., Simon Phipps (Sun) blog commentary on Coursey. Groklaw added some further comments as well.
• 8 Sept., Steven J. Vaughan-Nicols, "Microsoft's Standards Are No Standard at All", on eWeek.  Debates his co-worker Coursey's comments. 
• 9 Sept., Tim Bray (Sun) blog publishes Scott McNeally's letter to Peter Quinn.
• 10 Sept., Tim Bray (Sun) blog commentary "Massachusetts Back-Room" Groklaw additions here too.
• 10 Sept., More blog commentary from Microsoft's Mike Champion on the Microsoft XML blog.  To quote Mr. Phipps (from whence I found the link): "My, but he's prolific and subtle."
• 12 Sept., Excellent blog follow-up from Sun's Mr. Phipps on the framing game that's being played out here. 
• 12 Sept., Jim Wagner's "Open Season in Massachusetts" on InternetNews.
• Just catching up with blog commentary from Bob Sutor (IBM, V.P. Standards and Open Source) who is obviously supportive:
• 13-Sep-2005, Myths of Technical Neutrality, excellent bit with a peek at how vendors frame things. Nice bookend for Simon Phipps' bit on framing. 
• 8-Sep-2005, Official IBM response to the Massachusetts Enterprise Technical Reference Model v.3.5 - Public Review Draft
• 6-Sep-2005, Massachusetts Entry of the Day discussing David Berlind's ZDnet article.
• 1-Sep-2005, More Links on the Decision.  Covers off a number of links I haven't yet linked. 

Comments

[Mary Anne Martin]

Thanks for this great post. You've got some really good info in your blog. If you get a chance, you can check out my blog on
{office software} at http://www.officesoftwarehouse.com.

Mary Anne Martin
http://www.officesoftwarehouse.com