Pozdrav svima,

Jako zanimljiv odgovor dobih na ovo pitanje medjutim ja bih da ga malo analiziram. Ako malo
pazljivije procitamo dole navedeno videcemo da nismo dobili odgovor nego nesto sto se zove kruzna
logika.

Mozemo to slikovito da prikazemo kao da je kompanija Majkrosoft stiklirala polje "nema problema" u
formularu i onda izjavila da nema problema jer je dugme stiklirano. I kompanija Sun Microsystem kao
i kompanija IBM su vec ukazale na ovo u svojim analizama odgovora.

Dacu sebi tu slobodu da odem korak dalje i da pogledam malo tu dozvolu o kojoj se prica. Da li ste
je procitali?

Evo je ovde: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

Zanimljiv tekst koji kaze:

"To clarify, “Microsoft Necessary Claims” are those claims of
   Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to
   implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification
   that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such
   Specification. “Covered Specifications” are listed below."

A nesto nize kaze:

"Covered Specifications (the promise applies individually to each of these specifications)

   This promise applies to the identified version of the following
   specifications. New versions of previously covered specifications
   will be separately considered for addition to the list. In connection
   with the specifications listed below, this Promise also applies to
   the required elements of optional portions of such specifications. "

Da vam sumiram sta ovo kaze. Na istoj stranici se kaze da dozvola vazi SAMO za specifikaciju . 
Dodatno kaze da TAKODJE obraca paznju na sve specifikacije u vezi sa OOXML specifikacijom. Ali sve
ostale specifikacije su pod vlasnickim licencama i NISU pod OSP.

Nadam se da shvatate pravnu posledicu ovoga?

I zasto, ako ovaj odgovor kompanije Majkrosoft uzmemo za validan, ta ista kompanija tako
uzurbano registruje patente na tehnologije u vezi sa OOXML-om? I to ne samo u USA ili Indiji vec i
u EU.

Moja danasnja preporuka za citanje:

  http://www.piana.eu/?q=en/disposition_comments

i OBAVEZNO:

  http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/

za vise detalja na ovu temu.

Tako da ovaj odgovor odozdo, uz gore predocene informacije, potpuno gubi smisao.

> Pozdrav svima, jedna od Markovih tema bila je vezana za sledece pitanje:
> Does your national standardisation body have its own, independent legal analysis about the exact
> nature of the grant to certify whether it truly covers the full spectrum of all possible MS-OOXML
> implementations? Enjoy the legal aspect :). Hvala, Dejan
> ==================================================================== Information regarding IP
> legal issues from the proposed disposition of comments: ISO and IEC have received the appropriate
> IP declarations related to DIS29500 -- these are on file in their database and ISO/IEC may be
> queried about them. ... ISO and IEC representatives have repeatedly stated that they believe
> there are no IPR issues that would cause concern with the ISO/IEC/ITU Common Patent Policy or the
> adoption of DIS 29500, as explained in item 4.1 of the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 FAQ on DIS 29500.
> [...] Relevant points:
> 
> *         Microsoft has complied with ISO/IEC patent requirements, as determined by ISO/IEC.
> 
> *         This question assumes that the Serbian NB conducts inquiries on legal licensing issues
> beyond the ISO/IEC requirements.  To our understanding, Serbia follows the patent policy of
> ISO/IEC.  National standards bodies do not conduct legal analyses of patent grants as they could
> cover the full spectrum of all possible implementations.
> 
> *         There is no reason to ask the Serbian NB to create new rules and procedures to conduct
> legal analyses for this proposed standard, in a way it does not for any other proposed standard.
> 
> *         Beyond the ISO/IEC and Serbian requirements, Microsoft is very willing to discuss IP
> implications relating to the proposed standard.    In particular, we can verify that the Open
> Specification Promise that covers any required Microsoft patents in Open XML:
> -  Is legally binding on Microsoft in Serbia
> -  Was designed to ensure all implementers, including OSS and other vendors, can easily use Open
> XML
> -  Is used for dozens of web services and other standards of interest to OSS vendors
> -  Is comparable to covenants and pledges from IBM, Sun
> -  Is more suitable to most implementers than traditional standards licensing
> Further to the above:
> Microsoft completely agrees that granting everyone (not just competitors) freedom from "legal
> prosecution for implementation" of Open XML is essential.  Furthermore, such a grant indeed must
> be "clear, reliable and wide enough to cover all activities necessary to achieve full
> interoperability".  Those principles and assurances are exactly what Microsoft's Open
> Specification Promise was designed to provide.  The OSP is a direct promise from Microsoft to
> everyone in the world, and by its terms it is irrevocable.  That means that Microsoft is forever
> bound to its promise not to assert patent claims that are needed by anyone to implement any part
> of the Open XML specification.  The only instance in which Microsoft could suspend that promise
> is when someone "prosecutes" Microsoft for its implementation of Open XML.   After all, isn't
> Microsoft entitled to that freedom too?  Even in that event, Microsoft may only suspend its
> promise against those who are prosecuting Microsoft first.  This reciprocity is one of the
> pillars of fairness of standardization and implements the principle that all should be free from
> "legal prosecution for implementation" of Open XML.
> 
> But, is the OSP unnecessarily complex and narrow in its achievement of its purpose? Perhaps, due
> to the admittedly cursory nature of the legal study referred to in the question, one might be
> misled into thinking that the OSP is unusually complex and narrow.  However, an adequate reading
> of the OSP surfaces the depth and breadth of the promise that forms the basis of the OSP.  The
> OSP is a promise not to sue rather than a license grant.  This is because patent  licenses, to be
> effective, must be agreed to in some manner by both parties. Patent licenses are a type of
> contract, and for a contract to bind both parties completely, it must be signed by both parties,
> with some formality.  Microsoft, like SUN and IBM in their similar "covenants not to sue" chose
> to provide patent assurances, rather than requiring signed licenses, so that everyone could
> benefit from them directly and without the need to sign a license and undertake all the
> complexities that creates with certain forms of copyright licenses for computer code.  Unilateral
> promises made with the express terms that the promise is irrevocable are completely enforceable
> upon Microsoft (or anyone else who makes such a promise).  The OSP is no more complex than any
> other similar promise and far less complex than a multipage patent license agreement.  It does
> pack a lot of rights into a small package though, and as such it is very important to give
> something as crucial as this a careful, and not a cursory, reading.
> 
> The OSP provides assurance that no one will be sued for patent infringement for any patent claim
> necessary to implement any portion of the functionality described in the Open XML specification
> regardless of the status of that portion as being mandatory or optional for compliance with the
> specification.  However, the OSP does not stop there.  Unlike some similar promises (see the IBM
> ISP for an example) the OSP does not require complete conformance with the Open XML specification
> by an implementation for the promise to be effective.  If your implementation only needs to be
> partially compliant with the Open XML specification in order to achieve its purpose, you are free
> to implement only those parts you need.  To the extent your implementation uses the Open XML
> specification's provisions, the OSP applies to you.  Unlike other promises, an unforeseen
> programming error will not prevent the OSP from providing you with the protection  from "legal
> prosecution for implementation" that you need and deserve.
> 
> The OSP is an irrevocable promise from Microsoft that you will never be sued for infringing any
> patent Microsoft owns or controls (now or in the future) that you must infringe in order to
> implement any portion of the document formats that are described in ISO/IEC DIS 29500 and/or
> ECMA-376.  After a thorough (and not cursory) discussion of the facts as opposed to the
> suppositions, the short answer to the question posed (Legally safe?) is a resounding YES.