Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise
A fair amount has been written today about Microsoft's Open Specification Promise. Publications like Eweek have discussed it, and my colleague Jason Matusow has provided links to commentary across the net. From all I've read so far, Microsoft's promise has been well received.
The question I'm going to address is how is this approach different from current industry practices. To those involved in the standards setting world, terms like RAND and RAND RF have intrinsic meanings. To everyone else, its just another acronym in a strange standards world of organizations made up of yet other acronyms (IEEE, IETF, W3C, AACS, DVD CCA, etc.).
Most standards bodies require their members to make licenses to their necessary patents available on what are known as RAND terms. So what does RAND mean? RAND stands for "reasonable and non-discriminatory." Although the particular rules vary from standards org to standards org, RAND means that standards participants are required to grant standards implementers patent licenses for those patents that must be infringed to implement that specification.
To put it another way, a patent is a property right and, like other property rights, the owner can exclude other people from using it. By joining a standards organization and agreeing to grant a RAND license, a patent holder gives up its right to exclude others from using its necessary patents within the scope of the specification. Moreover, the terms that govern the use of that patent must be "reasonable and non-discriminatory."
RAND-z or RAND-RF add another import restriction a RAND license- the patent owner cannot charge a royalty fee for use of that patent. What is still technically required, however, is that implementers of the standard must still obtain a license from the patent holder.
What makes Microsoft's Open Specification Promise different from RAND licensing approaches is that for those specifications covered by the promise, an implementer doesn't need to come to Microsoft to get a license. Instead, Microsoft has promised not to assert its patent rights against implementers using Microsoft's necessary patent claims in connection with the specifications covered by the promise. Nothing needs to be signed and we don't need to know you're taking advantage of our promise. As long as you adhere to the promise's limited rules, Microsoft will not take legal action against you. It's not a free pass, since there are limited conditions that still apply, but it does ease the legal load for implementing standards.
September 13th, 2006 - 19:08
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
September 14th, 2006 - 08:00
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.
September 14th, 2006 - 21:49
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.
September 14th, 2006 - 21:57
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…