Comments on: Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise http://standardslaw.com/?p=5 David Rudin's Unoffical Standards Law Blog Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:46:00 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: El Weblog de macada » Archivio » Micro$oft Open Specification Promise http://standardslaw.com/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-966 El Weblog de macada » Archivio » Micro$oft Open Specification Promise Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:22:05 +0000 http://standardslaw.com/?p=5#comment-966 [...] David Rudin comenta en su blog la nueva Micro$oft Open Specification Promise publicada el pasado 12 de septiembre y por la cual Micro$oft promete no ejercer derechos de patentes sobre las especificaciones de sus Servicios Web. El documento ha sido acogido de forma bastante favorable incluso por los detractores del sistema de patentes. Siempre se ha temido que Micro$oft, o cualquier otro, use su portfolio de patentes para defenestrar al Software Libre por la vía judicial.El anuncio de la promesa sobre las especificaciones de los Servicios Web, se produce justo en paralelo a las declaraciones de Steve Balmer sobre el rol de los PCs en el mundo de los Servicios Web. [...] [...] David Rudin comenta en su blog la nueva Micro$oft Open Specification Promise publicada el pasado 12 de septiembre y por la cual Micro$oft promete no ejercer derechos de patentes sobre las especificaciones de sus Servicios Web. El documento ha sido acogido de forma bastante favorable incluso por los detractores del sistema de patentes. Siempre se ha temido que Micro$oft, o cualquier otro, use su portfolio de patentes para defenestrar al Software Libre por la vía judicial.El anuncio de la promesa sobre las especificaciones de los Servicios Web, se produce justo en paralelo a las declaraciones de Steve Balmer sobre el rol de los PCs en el mundo de los Servicios Web. [...]

]]> By: » When corporations attack | Open Source | ZDNet.com http://standardslaw.com/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-24 » When corporations attack | Open Source | ZDNet.com Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:52:55 +0000 http://standardslaw.com/?p=5#comment-24 [...] My post Patents are Not Property, attacking an assertion by Microsoft lawyer David Rudin I found both overly-broad and disingenuous, has gotten a predictable response. (Not to mention an attaboy from Jason Matusow.) [...] [...] My post Patents are Not Property, attacking an assertion by Microsoft lawyer David Rudin I found both overly-broad and disingenuous, has gotten a predictable response. (Not to mention an attaboy from Jason Matusow.) [...]

]]> By: David http://standardslaw.com/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-6 David Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:57:02 +0000 http://standardslaw.com/?p=5#comment-6 Oops, the "hyperbole" comment was directed to the David writing the blog, not me. -^_^- Correction to my comment about: "No nothing about IM though it is one of the most widely used web services" should read "Note: nothing about IM even though it is one of the most widely used web services." Ok, venting done. Perhaps, I care too much about these things... Oops, the “hyperbole” comment was directed to the David writing the blog, not me. -^_^-

Correction to my comment about:
“No nothing about IM though it is one of the most widely used web services”

should read
“Note: nothing about IM even though it is one of the most widely used web services.”

Ok, venting done. Perhaps, I care too much about these things…

]]> By: David http://standardslaw.com/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-5 David Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:49:06 +0000 http://standardslaw.com/?p=5#comment-5 Hyperbole? Please let me know what I was overstating. I don't understand. Here's a simple synopsis: Microsoft should make MSN messager's IM protocol an open standard (or use one that is already available) so that IM can interop like email does now. 1999: Microsoft supported open standards for IM (and according to AOL hacked aol's im servers to get interop, see http://news.com.com/Instant+message+fight+shows+power+shift/2100-1023_3-229030.html?tag=nl). 2002: Microsoft no longer cared about/supported interop. After "User numbers for MSN [messenger] ... skyrocketed." (see http://news.com.com/AOL,+Microsoft+to+talk+about+IM/2100-1032_3-1011379.html) 2006: "Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise" for web services. (No nothing about IM though it is one of the most widely used web services). It just isn't trustworthy, imo. Looking at history, if MS gets a big platform, it will no longer support calls for openess. I'd love for MS to prove me wrong and show some good faith by opening up IM. Hyperbole? Please let me know what I was overstating. I don’t understand.

Here’s a simple synopsis:

Microsoft should make MSN messager’s IM protocol an open standard (or use one that is already available) so that IM can interop like email does now.

1999: Microsoft supported open standards for IM (and according to AOL hacked aol’s im servers to get interop, see http://news.com.com/Instant+message+fight+shows+power+shift/2100-1023_3-229030.html?tag=nl).

2002: Microsoft no longer cared about/supported interop. After “User numbers for MSN [messenger] … skyrocketed.” (see http://news.com.com/AOL,+Microsoft+to+talk+about+IM/2100-1032_3-1011379.html)

2006: “Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise” for web services. (No nothing about IM though it is one of the most widely used web services).

It just isn’t trustworthy, imo. Looking at history, if MS gets a big platform, it will no longer support calls for openess. I’d love for MS to prove me wrong and show some good faith by opening up IM.

]]> By: » Patents are not property | Open Source | ZDNet.com http://standardslaw.com/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-4 » Patents are not property | Open Source | ZDNet.com Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:47:53 +0000 http://standardslaw.com/?p=5#comment-4 [...] Microsoft's Jason Matusow is proud to note that Microsoft corporate attorney David Rudin (also part of the company's Corporate Standards Strategy Team) has joined the blogosphere, and points to his first post, about the company's Open Specification Promise. [...] [...] Microsoft’s Jason Matusow is proud to note that Microsoft corporate attorney David Rudin (also part of the company’s Corporate Standards Strategy Team) has joined the blogosphere, and points to his first post, about the company’s Open Specification Promise. [...]

]]> By: David http://standardslaw.com/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-3 David Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:00:15 +0000 http://standardslaw.com/?p=5#comment-3 It seems that MS is making a big deal out of it. To me, it seems like it was forced on MS. Right now, there is very little adoption of the standards released, so this is an attempt to make them have traction and seem like an industry leading. Also, MS is about to release its WCF which has many of these standards implemented. Furthermore, there is no promise to allow others to use patents necessary to implement the standard in a performant manner. Lastly, when talking about open specifications for web services, the most prevalent one is IM. IM in its current state is like email was in the 80's. Microsoft admited the desire and need for IM interop in multiple ways. When it first released its implementation, it *hacked* aol's protocol (multiple times) in order to interoperate with it. Also, it did some agreement to interop with Yahoo's IM/ The ultimate step would be to release its protocol as an open specification like Jabber. Some other IM providers already do this. At worst, allowing others to interoperate (and use a gaim layer to do it) with a promise similar to the above would be a good first step. It seems that MS is making a big deal out of it. To me, it seems like it was forced on MS. Right now, there is very little adoption of the standards released, so this is an attempt to make them have traction and seem like an industry leading. Also, MS is about to release its WCF which has many of these standards implemented. Furthermore, there is no promise to allow others to use patents necessary to implement the standard in a performant manner.

Lastly, when talking about open specifications for web services, the most prevalent one is IM. IM in its current state is like email was in the 80′s. Microsoft admited the desire and need for IM interop in multiple ways. When it first released its implementation, it *hacked* aol’s protocol (multiple times) in order to interoperate with it. Also, it did some agreement to interop with Yahoo’s IM/ The ultimate step would be to release its protocol as an open specification like Jabber. Some other IM providers already do this. At worst, allowing others to interoperate (and use a gaim layer to do it) with a promise similar to the above would be a good first step.

]]> By: Jason Matusow http://standardslaw.com/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-2 Jason Matusow Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:08:55 +0000 http://standardslaw.com/?p=5#comment-2 Welcome to the world of blogging David! I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Standards is a big, big, big world and there is enough hyperbole and complexity to keep bloggers happy indefinitely. Jason Welcome to the world of blogging David! I’m looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Standards is a big, big, big world and there is enough hyperbole and complexity to keep bloggers happy indefinitely.

Jason

]]>