Microsoft Reaches Interoperability 1.0
|
News Analysis. Today, Microsoft announced the release of more interoperability information, including legacy, Office binary file formats. |
The updated protocol information is available here, on the MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network).
Microsoft also released final protocol information for 2007 versions of Exchange Server, Office 2007 and SharePoint Server. The information moves "from preliminary to 1.0 stage," Craig Shank, Microsoft's general manager of Interoperability, told me on Friday. "We're at a stage where we have a high degree of confidence in it."
Say what? How the hell do you have a 1.0 release of protocol information? So, what, the earlier release was beta? I didn't think of these questions until writing this post, otherwise I would have directly asked Craig last week. Because I wonder: How can somebody develop around protocols that are released but really are incomplete, let alone license them?
Microsoft released preliminary protocol information in April. The 1.0 designation reflects changes incorporated based on community feedback. I wonder how much feedback Microsoft got on licensing terms, which are unchanged.
The protocol information is free to use for non-commercial purposes. But people developing commercial products pay—and if not, their customers do. It's sensible that Microsoft charges for its patented technologies. But European Union sanctions demand free use of server protocol information for open source and free software, a concession Microsoft hasn't made. It's one I expect the company will never make.
"There isn't a cost to learning more," Craig said. "The documentation is posted to MSDN. Anyone can read anytime. Better yet there's a set of forums."
I probed Craig a bit about to see how far Microsoft would pursue non-paying commercial users. Microsoft gives away development tools to college students. What if someone develops an application that goes from free to commercial? I used example of a student charging others for a social networking app using Microsoft protocols. Craig emphasized the difference between a commercial enterprise and a student making "nickels for beer money. I'm not sure that's the most useful way to do the analysis."
Fair enough. Microsoft doesn't want to nickel and dime students out of their nickels and dimes.
Besides protocols for newer products, Microsoft also released information for Office binary file formats, such as .doc and .xls. Enterprises have mountains of valuable data locked away in these older formats. Their interoperability deserves consideration, too, and not just among Microsoft and third-party technologies. The protocols should allow enterprises to better extract meaningful data from older Microsoft file formats.
Microsoft also disclosed patent information. "It is patents that cover those protocols that we're publishing," Craig said. Because of licensing considerations, I asked if information included patents from other companies. "It is Microsoft patents," he affirmed.
Questions remain about Microsoft's interoperability sincerity, whether the company feels forced—by market conditions or European regulators—or has simply changed its ways.
"I would evaluate based on the documentation itself," Craig said. "I would suggest that a serious implentator would roll up his shelves and dive in."
Thoughtfully listening to his responses, I got to thinking about other companies' protocol information publishing. For all the criticism of Microsoft, I can't think of another high-tech company disclosing near as much information. So I asked Craig about other companies publishing protocol information.
"I would love to see others follow our leadership on this," he said.
Related Posts:
- Microsoft Pledges Real ODF Support in Office, Microsoft Watch, May 21, 2008
- Microsoft Appeals €899M Fine, Microsoft Watch, May 9, 2008
- Interoperability: First Benefit Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, April 29, 2008
- Interoperability by PR Is Gambit, Microsoft Watch, March 6, 2008
- Microsoft, the EU and Broken Promises, Microsoft Watch, March 3, 2008
- Defining Microsoft's Interoperability 'Principals', Microsoft Watch, Feb. 21, 2008
- Whose Principles Are They?, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 21, 2008
- The EU: Microsoft's New Taskmaster, Microsoft Watch, Oct. 22, 2007
Comments (10)
Two quotes from Joe Willcox:
"Questions remain about Microsoft's interoperability sincerity, whether the company feels forced—by market conditions or European regulators—or has simply changed its ways."
"But European Union sanctions demand free use of server protocol information for open source and free software, a concession Microsoft hasn't made. It's one I expect the company will never make."
-----------------------------------------------------
This reminds me of an old song that the lyrics go like this: "I fought the law, and the law won."
The same outcome as the lyrics in this song, are the most likely outcome too.
Posted by chips | June 30, 2008 1:17 PM
Hi Joe
This is what I am getting.
Server Error in '/' Application.
The resource cannot be found.
Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Requested URL: /en-us/library/cc216514.aspx
Posted by Random Joe | June 30, 2008 2:00 PM
I think you are making a wrong assumption in your comment about the earlier version of the documentation.
You say: "How can somebody develop around protocols that are released but really are incomplete". The wrong assumption is that the things that need fixing up for release 1.0 are in the nature of filling holes. No, the earlier version was 100% complete. What needed fixing is a standard problem for any complex documentation -- ambiguities need to be identified and clarified.
In fact, this documentation is the *same* as that produced in the US anti-trust case. It was "complete" years ago in the sense that everything was described (and people could use it to make products). But a technical committee has met for years pointing out things that could be said more clearly, and Microsoft has been producing various versions all those years.
Posted by Ian Easson | June 30, 2008 2:54 PM
"Thoughtfully listening to his responses, I got to thinking about other companies' protocol information publishing. For all the criticism of Microsoft, I can't think of another high-tech company disclosing near as much information."
Maybe because other companies don't produce so many standards and protocols that replicate functionality offered by open standards and open protocols for the sole purpose of market control and lock-in?
Posted by Denis | June 30, 2008 3:06 PM
This is more of the same for Microsoft. It is all part of their current plan to get licensing fees from anyone who sells an operating system.
The plan goes like this:
1. Get OS developers to incorporate your protocols in their software. They do not get sued because they are not doing it for profit.
2. Distro includes the software.
3. Sue Linux distro for patent violation, or get them to sign an agreement upfront. Remember signing upfront is much cheaper than being sued later.
The result is that nobody will be able to do business in this town without Microsoft getting their chunk.
Hopefully the EU will not recognize these patent claims but I am not so sure about US companies. The net result may be the loss of the US tech industry as all companies move to the EU or elsewhere to avoid patent suits.
Posted by billybob | June 30, 2008 4:09 PM
RandomJoe, The URL works for me...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc216514.aspx
Maybe it was down when you tried it.
Posted by AndyB | June 30, 2008 5:30 PM
The "free for non-commercial use" licensing is worthless for developers of Free Software. Even if they themselves are not using the software for "commercial" purposes (whatever that might mean), they can't prevent their users from doing so--that's what "freedom" means, after all.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | July 1, 2008 1:11 AM
Microsoft empowered people with software. Fsf, Oss and free documentation empowers more for less. Micro- and Macroeconomic advantages are more in quality and quantity - anonymous commentator
Posted by anonymous | July 1, 2008 7:54 AM
Its a good title, don't get me wrong. But even with a "1.0" version with Micro$oft, nothing seems to work right, remember Windows 1.01? Micro$oft is still trying to argue, delay, and reduce or suspend the fine, thats its tactics with the courts, especially the EU. To give out data that is incomplete is not really complying with the EU or DOJ court orders, is it? Time for some more fines and penalties, I think.
In the end, Micro$oft doesn't understand this, as it will be dragged into complying. The governments of this western world, are now cash strapped, and their citizens, taxed to the max. Something has to give, one of those things, is the gradual conversions of Government and School systems to Linux to save a few bucks. This is already happening, wake up and smell the coffee, Micro$oft.
The fines will become bigger, if one government is bought out, another one or two will spring up to take its place. And if Micro$oft gets its hand caught in the cookie jar, trying to bribe overseas governments, like the EU, it could escalate.
This is not the end of Micro$oft, nor is it the end of the windows desktop monopoly. That end will begin when one can go down to Best Buy, and buy any laptop, with a real choice of systems. Which would be as easy to do, as pulling a hard drive off the shelf, with a preinstalled OS, or no OS with the cost savings. Then and only then, will balance start to be restored to the market.
Posted by chips | July 1, 2008 12:24 PM
Is it still under the license. Here's the information pay up for patents if you use it.
So what really the difference. Countries without software patents are free to do what they like. How to send all software development jobs overseas.
About time USA wakes up Software Patent law is killing there software companies.
Posted by oiaohm | July 1, 2008 6:25 PM