Open XML - Microsoft Download Center

Featuring: • Governments Worldwide Enacting Choice• Dispelling Competitors’ Allegations• IP Rights Available for All Open XML

Implementers• Open Innovation, Interoperability, and

Economic Growth

Your Documents, Your Choice: Open XMLA Policy Guide

F o r e w o r d

In the past three years, we have pushed ourselves in our engineering work and our standards efforts to create an XML-based document format that can be easily shared and integrated by governments, customers, partners, and even competitors around the world.

The process started in 2004 when government customers asked Microsoft to help them archive their massive collections of binary documents and to standardize and openly publish the Microsoft Office document format through a standards body. And policy makers further encouraged Microsoft to make the Microsoft Office document format more broadly available, including to OSS implementers.

We listened, and our response was Open XML, a document format that is designed to be compatible with earlier versions of Office as well as highly interoperable with other formats such as Open Document Format (ODF), China’s Uniform Office Format (UOF), and the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY). Open XML ensures that all documents will remain available decades into the future, regardless of the application used to access them. And Microsoft’s promise to make its intellectual property rights related to Open XML broadly available and on royalty-free terms to all implementers, including OSS implementers, ensures that Open XML is available for wide-spread adoption. In a nutshell, Open XML’s availability and interoperability allow governments to deploy technologies that best meet their needs and citizens to use the technology of their own choosing to interact with their governments.

We submitted Open XML to Ecma International, a respected standards body with a nearly 50-year history in the information technology industry. Open XML became more than just a Microsoft endeavor, as many other companies such as Statoil in Norway and BP in the UK helped to refine and enhance the format, leading to Open XML becoming an Ecma International open standard in 2006. Open XML is now under consideration for ratification by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in a process that is scheduled to be completed in March 2008.

A Question of Choice

3

The standardization of Open XML has made it easy for broad-based adoption across platforms and applications, and there is a rapidly growing list of governments and companies that are doing just that. Government agencies around the world are supporting Open XML, and companies large and small are supporting Open XML in their product suites, bringing new products to market, and creating new local economic opportunities. Competitors such as Apple, Corel, and Novell are also supporting Open XML in their product suites.

For governments, companies, and citizens to reap the full benefits of innovations such as Open XML, government policy makers need to embrace policies that foster innovation, competition, and growth. They need to promote policies that are technology neutral and promote choice amongst complementing and competing standards. In fact, most government policy makers around the world recognize that there are many choices among document format standards, and limiting the choice to just one would impede the ability of governments to effectively serve their citizens, to pick the best technology for a specific need, and to manage archived documents.

The studies in this volume demonstrate how neutral, objective, and competitive government procurement policies that do not exclude vendors from the process promote government efficiencies, competition, innovation, and economic growth. The studies and the Open XML fact sheets span governments and policies around the globe and provide you an overview of some of the central policy issues. We hope you find them enlightening.

Thank you.

Chris CaposselaCorporate Vice PresidentMicrosoft Office Team

4

C o n t e n tF o r e w o r d

3 A Question of Choice

S e c t i o n O n e : I s s u e B a c k g r o u n d e r s a n d

I n d e p e n d e n t R e s e a r c h

6 Enabling Open Innovation and Interoperability: Recommendations for Policy Makers:

A discussion of how a collaborative approach to innovation and the licensing of intellectual property

foster interoperability.

12 Interoperability, Choice, and Open XML:

An Open Letter.

18 The Making of an Open Standard:

An Open Letter.

20 Independent Studies Support IT Innovation:

Innovation in the IT industry is a key driver of local economic growth, including jobs and revenue,

as recent studies published by IDC, Harvard, and Stanford show. Another recent study discusses the

advantages of Open XML for customers. An overview.

24 Open XML Around the World:

Open XML is a reality that has seen support and been deployed around the world by organizations

across all major industries. A visual summary.

5

C o n t e n t

C o n t e n tS e c t i o n T w o : F a c t S h e e t s

26 Open XML and ODF Adoption: Separating Fact From Ficition:

An overview of how governments around the world are basing their policies on the principles of neutrality

and choice.

36 Open XML: An Open Standard Driving Interoperability, Competition, Choice, and Innovation:

An overview of how Open XML as an open standard is opening a world of choices to users.

44 Ecma International and the Adoption of Open XML as an Open Standard:

The process through which global companies worked together to make Open XML an international open

standard.

46 The Importance of Document Format Choice in Government:

Why governments need to examine all of the options among formats and not just one.

48 Benefits of Open XML in Preserving Historical Documents:

The advantages Open XML offers when archiving documents.

50 Open XML-ODF Translator:

How translators create interoperability.

52 There Are No IPR Issues with Open XML:

ISO and Ecma agree — there are no IP rights issues with Open XML.

Nicos L. TsilasMicrosoft Corporation

Recommendations for Policy Makers

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N

The information technology (“IT”) industry is achieving an unprecedented level of innovation and

interoperability, and customers are the direct beneficiaries in terms of increased choice and novel products.

This paper briefly addresses several key issues facing the IT industry today, namely: (1) the transition from a

“Closed Innovation” model to an “Open Innovation” model; (2) the various types of interoperability; and (3) the

optimal roles of industry and government in enabling greater innovation and interoperability.

2 . O P E N I N N OVAT I O N

Innovation is the primary driving force in the IT industry. Technology companies that can generate

innovative technologies that respond to customer needs thrive. Companies that cannot are inevitably

supplanted by companies that can. Of course, an innovation imperative is neither new nor unique to the IT

industry, and this marketplace dynamic is unlikely to change anytime soon. What has changed, however,

are the strategies and business models companies use to develop and deliver products and services that

customers find compelling, and to generate a financial return on their innovations.

2.1. Shift from Closed to Open Innovation

As recently as the 1980s, it was commonplace for companies to pursue innovations almost exclusively through 6

This paper was delivered at the United Nations University First International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV 2007, held in Macao, 10-13 December 2007.

Enabling Open Innovation and Interoperability:

I s s u e B a c k g r o u n d e r s a n d I n d e p e n d e n t R e s e a r c h

7

in-house research and development (“R&D”). A strong internal R&D program was often

regarded as a strategic asset that in some industries posed a nearly insurmountable

competitive advantage. For these reasons, the resulting intellectual property (“IP”) was

guarded jealously and not shared. Companies rarely collaborated or shared ideas, and

innovation, by default, occurred in silos. An unfortunate consequence of this inward-

focused approach was that, unless an innovation or idea was considered potentially

profitable in the near term to the company that discovered it, it often lay fallow. History

has since revealed that the benefits of multitudes of innovative technologies, developed

by some of the world’s most advanced labs, were lost as a result.

Today, by contrast, the center of gravity of innovation is increasingly moving beyond the

centralized R&D labs of large firms to outside networks of innovators, including smaller

companies and independent inventors. This is because innovation itself is becoming

ever-more heterogeneous, fragmented, and unruly, and few if any companies today can

hold all the pieces of even their own product technology in their own hands. This new

paradigm that is transforming today’s IT industry has been aptly described by Berkeley

Professor Henry Chesbrough as “Open Innovation.” In the Open Innovation paradigm,

firms are discovering that they simply must collaborate with others if they want to survive

and prosper in today’s increasingly diverse, multi-polar, and inter-connected technology

environment, and IP is the cornerstone enabling this collaboration.

Microsoft, like many other IT companies, is committed to, and spends billions of

dollars on, Open Innovation efforts with other firms. Microsoft has been building and

leveraging its IP portfolio not primarily for money, but for relationships that enable it to

develop products to meet customer needs — relationships with large firms, small firms,

open source software (“OSS”) firms, proprietary firms, venture capitalists, economic

development agencies, inventors, software developers, and technologists of all sorts. In

fact, Microsoft spends orders of magnitude more licensing in the IP of others — more

than $1.4 billion USD so far — than it will ever receive for the licensing out of its IP to

others. Through its partner-focused business model, and initiatives like “IP Ventures,”

Microsoft today works with more than 750,000 hardware, software, and services

companies. An October 2007 IDC study found that Microsoft’s ecosystem employs 42% of

the global IT workforce, and that in 2007 the local companies in this ecosystem will earn

more than $400 billion USD in revenues, and, in 2008, invest close to $100 billion USD in

local economies. The study also found that for every unit of revenue – dollar, euro, peso,

etc. – that Microsoft will earn in 2007, other companies will earn 7.79.

Other leading technology companies have also embraced Open Innovation principles

and transformed the ways in which they develop, manage, and monetize their IP. IBM,

for example, has gradually moved beyond the “not-invented-here” mentality and

now focuses on working with other companies to help shape externally developed

technologies (commonly in the open source arena), which are then incorporated into IBM’s

own products. IBM’s Consulting Services Division builds on this strategy by using OSS

and helping other companies integrate and maintain these solutions. At the same time,

IBM no longer seeks to deploy all of its innovations exclusively within its own products

and services. In making its technologies available on the open market, IBM earns a

significant portion of its revenue (more than $1 billion USD annually) through licensing its

IP externally to partners and competitors alike. Microsoft, IBM, and others pursue such

collaborations and licensing because Open Innovation is essential to competitiveness,

revenues, and effectively meeting customers’ needs.

2.2. Avoiding Technology Mandates and Promoting

Choice and Neutrality

Open innovation and the ever-evolving mix of business models pursued by competing

companies highlight how dynamic the IT environment is and how marketplace forces are

driving greater competition and innovation.

** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: In such a highly dynamic

marketplace, governments and policy makers should refrain from mandating any

particular technology or business/licensing model in their procurement decisions. Locking

in specific technology mandates locks out innovation. Rather, they should develop policies

that are neutral with respect to competing technologies and business/licensing models

and that allow for choice of either (or all) based on reasonable, objective criteria.

8

A notable example of the potential innovation-stifling dangers of government-mandated

technologies occurred in the high definition television (“HDTV”) area. Japan spent 20 years

of effort and billions of dollars on a government-mandated, analog-based HDTV standard

— called “Hi-Vision” — only to wind up being quickly surpassed in the race toward HDTV

by America, whose laissez-faire, market-based approach to innovation allowed a tiny

American company — General Instrument — to develop a digital-based HDTV standard

that became the cornerstone of the global digital technology revolution. In short, the

Digital Revolution was born and first flourished in the U.S. precisely because there was no

government-directed program seeking a preferred technological outcome for HDTV.

Of course, governments today face similar decisions. Should they endorse Open Document

Format (“ODF”) or Open XML, or both? Should they leave room for other emerging

document standards (like the Compound Document Format (“CDF”))? Not only are both

justified because these are different standards serving different user needs, but who is

to say that the ODF-Open XML debate will not be rendered moot tomorrow when a new

document format technology far surpasses either or both? Do policy makers really want to

risk billions of dollars — as Japan did in the HDTV context — that this won’t happen?

For this reason, in 1996, when the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)

adopted a digital broadcast standard, it declined to mandate a single video format based

on the conclusion that it would “result in greater choice and diversity of equipment, allow

computer equipment and software firms more opportunity to compete by promoting

interoperability, and result in greater consumer benefits by allowing an increase in the

availability of new products and services.” Further, the FCC concluded that “allow[ing]

video formats to be tested and decided by the market [would] avoid[] the risk of a

mistaken government intervention in the market….”1

2.3. Protecting IP is Essential for Fostering Greater

Innovation

More than 100 years of economic research has proven beyond a doubt that intellectual

property rights are the indispensable engine of innovation and economic growth. 1 Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 11 FCC Rcd 17771, ¶¶ 39, 42

(1996).

Patented technology innovation, for example, accounts for more than half the growth

of the U.S. economy (and some studies suggest it may be closer to 80% of economic

growth) (Schacht, 2000). Further, in today’s knowledge-based economy, the trade in ideas

through patent licensing is growing at twice the rate of the trade in goods (ICC, 2005).

Economists have found that, worldwide, it is not capital resources or industrial capacity or

even educational infrastructure, but rather the strength of a country’s IP incentive system

that is the principal driver of innovation and economic growth across the globe. As one

study from the National Bureau of Economic Research noted, in the absence of IP incentive

systems and strong intellectual property rights, “the leading places have insufficient

incentive to invent and the follower places have excessive incentive to copy” rather than

invent for themselves.

However, while IP’s indispensable role as a global engine of prosperity has remained

unchanged, the manner and nature of its use have undergone a profound transformation.

The key change is that under the Open Innovation model, IP’s power to exclude

competitors, although certainly still important, is increasingly being replaced by its

ability to leverage “inclusivity” by serving as the currency or the “secret sauce” of literally

dozens of new business models and ways of partnering with friends and foes alike. In

fact, Open Innovation itself would literally be impossible without IP. Without strong and

clear IP rights, firms would resist sharing their ideas out of fear that competitors would

steal their innovations, and the whole process would break down. But with such rights,

firms can share their innovations with each other secure in the knowledge that each is

fully protected in deploying them to mutual advantage. Just as good fences make good

neighbors, strong IP makes for strong and successful Open Innovation collaborations.

Indeed, in today’s world, IP’s so-called “fence” has become much more of a bridge to

collaboration than a barrier between companies. Thus, it is no surprise that a recent

survey by The Economist found that 68% of senior executives in Europe say that “their top

strategy for accelerating innovation over the next two years” is to increase patent licensing

and other IP-enabled collaboration with outside firms.

** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: Enable healthy IP incentive

systems. Adopt and enforce strong yet flexible IP protections as a key to facilitating

greater innovation, collaboration, and economic growth.

Although all IT companies rely to some extent on the value and opportunities IP creates,

some companies, such as certain open source advocates, often ask governments and

procurement officials to: (1) require bidders to waive their IP rights in proposed technology;

or (2) mandate/prefer technologies developed under an OSS model. It is important to

realize that these companies are telling only half the story. While they want governments

to force others to waive their IP rights, they do not want such waivers to apply to their own

IP rights or the IP rights of their customers. These advocates are able to advance these IP

waiver proposals because their business models may not be predicated on, for example,

software patents for which waivers are sought, but rather on royalties for use of other IP,

or revenues from the installation, integration, maintenance, and training for such software

products.

** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: Do not be misled by entities

advocating “IP-free” procurement mandates or preferences, because such entities often

are telling only half the story, and such regulatory proposals are often part of a strategy to

bolster the proponent’s own business plan, which may be focused on other IP elements to

enhance its bottom line. In addition, limiting or waiving IP rights will only serve to dampen

parties’ incentives to innovate, thereby harming consumers and economic growth.

3 . I N T E R O P E R A B I L I T Y

In recent times, both private and public sector customers have identified interoperability

as an increasingly desired feature of IT products and services, ranking it with security and

reliability. Interoperability, however, means many things to different people, and levels of

interoperability will vary based on numerous factors.2 Therefore, it is worth examining in

greater detail.

Interoperability is the ability of people, organizations, and systems to efficiently and


9

effectively exchange and use information. In a nutshell, interoperability is connecting

people, data, and diverse systems. Interoperability can be divided into two general

categories: (1) technical interoperability; and (2) people interoperability. The distinctions

between the two are important, particularly when it comes to the proper roles of industry

and government in advancing interoperability goals.

3.1. The Four Pillars of Technical Interoperability

Technical interoperability is the ability of heterogeneous IT networks, applications,

or components to exchange and use information, i.e., to talk to and understand each

other (Newton, 2005). There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution pursued by IT companies

for achieving technical interoperability. Rather, the IT industry has achieved its current

unparalleled level of interoperability through the use of four complementary and time-

tested methods, or “pillars.” The four pillars of technical interoperability are:

(i) Products - involves the explicit design of products to be interoperable with other

products/services right out of the box with little need for customization or integration

services;

(ii) Community - involves working with the IT community, including partners, customers,

and competitors alike;

(iii) Access - involves providing and gaining access to technology through the licensing of IP

such as patents and copyrights;

(iv) Standards - involves developing and implementing industry standards (including both

“open standards” and broadly accessible “proprietary standards”).

All vendors accomplish interoperability via these four pillars. But depending upon a

company’s specific business model, it may emphasize one or more pillars to a greater

2 In certain contexts, such as document formats, interoperability may be deemed by the user to be just as important as security, reliability, or any other feature. In other contexts, broad interoperability can be of relatively little value to customers, as evidenced, for example, by the significant market share of Apple’s iPod products, which offer few, if any, interoperability benefits yet tremendous ease-of-use capabilities. In general, therefore, it is important to keep in mind that optimal levels of interoperability will often vary based on several factors, including: (1) customer needs and desires; (2) the nature of the product or service at issue (hardware or software); (3) the maturity of the technology available; (4) industry externalities such as competitor, partner, and regulatory issues; and (5) the business models employed by industry participants.

degree than the others. For example, although Microsoft uses all four pillars in different

situations, it focuses on accomplishing interoperability through the explicit design of

products that work with others right out of the box (product pillar), working with partners,

customers, and competitors (community pillar), and the licensing of IP (access pillar)

to deliver products that are interoperable by design, interoperable out of the box. By

contrast, other companies (e.g., IBM, Red Hat) have a core business model that focuses

more on the generation of revenue through IT consulting, integration, training, and

maintenance services (i.e., interoperability by the hour). Since such companies make

money by stitching together various hardware and software products, they are not as

interested in pursuing or endorsing products that are interoperable right out of the

box, but rather support new standards and new software models in order to replace or

supplement existing interoperable solutions and thereby create a greater need for their

services. Such companies often, for example, promote OSS, patent-free and royalty-

free open standards, and compulsory IP licensing as a way of commoditizing and

displacing proprietary software, thereby reducing their own costs and affording them

the opportunity to give away free or low-cost software as a loss leader in order to gain

higher margins for their core consulting, integration, maintenance, and training services

businesses.

In recent times, there has been an overemphasis on open standards as the best or only

way to achieve interoperability. Two key drivers for this misguided approach are: (1) the

fact that, as noted, certain companies use standards to promote their own business model

and therefore aggressively urge governments to favor this approach; and (2) the practices

and focus of the hardware world carrying over to the software world. Most non-technical

people think of interoperability and assume that the limitations of the physical world also

apply to software. While in the physical world (e.g., train tracks, power outlets, or pipe

fittings) interoperability is relatively more difficult and expensive to achieve, and is often

achieved with standards-based solutions, it is not necessarily so for software. Software

is free of physical bounds, and software interoperability can therefore be accomplished

in ways other than standards, such as through the use of translators and converters. For

example, translators already exist to ensure interoperability between ODF and Open XML. 10

In short, while open standards are one way to achieve interoperability, they are clearly not

the only way or even necessarily the best way in a given situation.

** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: In order to maximize the

level of interoperability, governments should embrace a policy that allows for choice

by their software procurement and other divisions seeking interoperability solutions

— choice as to which one of the above four pillars, or combination of them, is the best

means of achieving interoperability in a given situation; choice regarding which open

standard(s) and/or proprietary standard(s) to rely on under the circumstances; and

choice between open source software and proprietary software in the procurement

process. This flexible approach predicated on choice is particularly appropriate in the

rapidly converging IT world, in which customers and governments increasingly rely on

a combination of proprietary and open source software, as well as open standards and

proprietary standards, to develop an ideal interoperability strategy.

3.2. People Interoperability

People interoperability encompasses the less tangible and often more complex issues of

organizational, semantic, and policy interoperability.

3.2.1. Organizational Interoperability

This is the aspect of interoperability concerned with defining business goals, modeling

business processes, and bringing about the collaboration of organizations, such as

ministries, bureaus, departments of state, and national governments, that wish to

exchange information and may have different internal structures and processes.

Organizational interoperability entails defining and focusing on the project objective

regardless of ownership, location, make, version, or design of the IT systems being used.

3.2.2. Semantic Interoperability

This is the aspect of interoperability concerned with ensuring that the precise meaning

of exchanged information is understandable by any other application that was not

initially developed for this purpose. It involves the definition of a common language

and vocabularies so that two or more organizations and computer systems can exchange

information and ensure consistency in the way such information is represented and

understood.

3.2.3. Policy Interoperability

This is the aspect of interoperability concerned with the legal or business policies that

need to be in place between organizations, states, and/or countries to ensure the accurate,

reliable, and meaningful exchange of information. Common policies that are often a focus

for governments deploying e-government systems and looking to improve interoperability

include accessibility, privacy, security, and multilingualism.

Governments are often best suited to promote people interoperability, and can help

the interoperability ecosystem by improving areas where they have direct (and perhaps

exclusive) influence, most notably in the often more complex areas of organizational,

semantic, and policy interoperability. A key problem governments and procurement

officials typically face is that they focus too heavily on the technical interoperability

issues (such as whether to mandate or prefer ODF over Open XML or OSS solutions over

proprietary software solutions), which the IT industry is already well-equipped to address.

** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: Focus on the people

interoperability issues that they are better equipped to resolve, and allow the IT industry

and competitive market forces to drive the best technical interoperability solutions.

4 . C O N C L U S I O N

IP is a key enabler of greater innovation and interoperability in the IT marketplace. In the

new world of Open Innovation, IP’s power to exclude is increasingly being replaced by its

ability to serve as the currency or the “glue” for literally dozens of new business models

and collaborations between competitors. In order to maximize innovation, interoperability,

competition, and economic growth, governments should establish strong IP protection

frameworks and avoid regulatory approaches and procurement decisions that waive IP

rights or mandate particular technologies or business/licensing models to the exclusion of


11

others. Rather, a policy of choice and technological neutrality is the best approach. Finally,

governments should focus their efforts on people interoperability initiatives and allow the

industry and market forces to lead in solving technical interoperability issues.

5 . R E F E R E N C E S

Baird, S., The Government at the Standards Bazaar (18 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 35 (2007))

(describing the five parts of the “interoperability ecosystem” and government’s optimal

role).

Barro, R. & Sala-I-Martin, X., Technology Diffusion, Convergence, and Growth, Working

Paper 5151, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research, Cambridge, MA (1995), in 2 J. of Econ. Growth

23 (1997).

Chesbrough, H., Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from

Technology, at xx, xxiv, 56, 93-112, 113-133 (Harv. Bus. Sch. Press 2006).

The Economist, The Value of Knowledge: European Firms and the Intellectual Property

Challenge, an Economist Intelligence Unit white paper sponsored by Qualcomm (January,

2007), at 13.

International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), Intellectual Property: Source of Innovation,

Creativity, Growth and Progress (August, 2005).

Schacht, W., Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over

Government Policy, The National Council for Science and the Environment (September,

2000). •

ACM COPYRIGHT NOTICE. Copyright © 2007 by the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from Publications Dept., ACM, Inc., fax +1 (212) 869-0481, or [email protected] 2007, December 10-13, 2007, Macao Copyright 2007 ACM 978-1-59593-822 -0/07/12.


13

I n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y a n d M i c r o s o f t

Overthepastyear,Microsofthassteppedupeffortstoidentifyandmeettheinteroperabilityneedsofourcustomers.

Amongotherthings,wehavelaunchedtheInteroperabilityExecutiveCustomerCouncil,madeupofseniorCIOsfrom

thepublicandprivatesectorsaroundtheworld,whoareworkingcloselywithustohelpusunderstandtheirmostcritical

needs.WehavealsoworkedwithotherstofoundtheInteroperabilityVendorAlliance,builtinteroperabilitycollaborations

with vendors such as Novell and JBoss, delivered the Open Specification Promise, and supported Open XML’s becoming

aninternationalstandard.Alloftheserepresentanongoingcommitmenttodeliveringinteroperabilitybydesignthrough

consistent,customer-focusedactivities.

Interoperability, Choice, and Open XML

Tom RobertsonGeneral Manager, Interoperability & Standards Microsoft Corporation

Jean PaoliGeneral Manager, Interoperability & XML ArchitectureMicrosoft Corporation

February 2007

14

Microsoftunderstandsthataddressinginteroperabilityinvolvesdrawing

uponavarietyoftools.Wearedeployingallofthem:designing

productssothattheyareinteroperablewithotherproductsoutofthe

box,withoutneedforextensiveconsultingservices;collaboratingwith

othersinthecommunitytojointlysolveinteroperabilitychallenges;

broadeningthewaysweprovideaccesstoourtechnologiessothat

otherscancreateinteroperablesolutions;andparticipatinginefforts

todevelopstandardsthatcreatecommonsolutionstointeroperability

challenges.

Alotofhype—andsmokeandmirrorsobfuscation—surrounds

interoperabilitythesedays.Thebestwaytocutthroughitistofocus

onwhatisreallyhappening,whatstepsareactuallybeingtaken,rather

thantherhetoric.Agoodexampleisthedebatesurroundingdocument

file formats.

D o c u m e n t F o r m a t s a n d X M L

Indocumentformats,customershavesaidloudandclearthattheywant

interoperability,choice,andinnovation.Onthesecriteria,Microsofthas

long believed in the power of XML-based file formats to unlock data

in documents and to help integrate front and back office processes

— while providing significant opportunities for independent software

vendorstocreatehigh-valueapplications.Microsofthasincreasingly

implemented XML-based formats in successive releases of Office. With

Office 2007, the default file formats for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint

are now based on Open XML, which is also supported in Office 2003,

Office XP, and Office 2000 through a free update. In fact, Office has long

supportedmultipleformats.

We believe that Open XML represents an exciting advance toward

achieving the original vision of XML, where broad interoperability allows

D o c u m e n t F oD o c u m e n t F o

documentstobearchived,restructured,aggregated,andre-usedinnewanddynamicways.WebelievethatOpen

XML can help spark an explosion of innovation and investment, which will bring great benefits for customers in the

yearstocome.

O p e n X M L , a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t a n d a r d s i n c e D e c e m b e r 7, 2 0 0 6

Customers, particularly government customers, have told us they would prefer that Open XML become an open

standard.Membersofthebroadercommunityhavesaidtheywouldlikebroadrightstouse,withoutcost,any

Microsoftpatentsnecessarytoimplementallorpartoftheformat.

Responding to these interests, Microsoft and others called for the standardization of Open XML. We submitted

ittoEcmaInternational,ahighlyrespectedstandardizationbodythathasdevelopedhundredsofinternational

technologystandardsduringthepast46years.Ecmaformedatechnicalcommitteethatrepresentedawiderange

of interests, including information technology companies (Apple, Intel, Novell, Microsoft, NextPage, Toshiba),

government institutions that archive documents (the British Library, the U.S. Library of Congress), and sophisticated

“power users” of information technology (BP, Statoil, Barclays Capital, Essilor). The technical committee worked

intensively for nearly a year and ultimately produced a specification that met its key objectives. The original

specification submitted to the technical committee grew from approximately 2,000 pages to more than 6,000 as

a result of the committee’s requirement that it comprehensively detail all aspects of the format. The specification

enablesimplementationofthestandardonmultipleoperatingsystemsandinheterogeneousenvironments,andit

providesbackwardcompatibilitywithbillionsofexistingdocuments.

To ensure that any issues with Open XML were identified and resolved before Ecma completed its process, the

technical committee posted drafts of the specification for the community’s review and comment. Meanwhile,

Microsoft brought the Open XML specification under our Open Specification Promise, clarifying that any Microsoft

patent needed to implement any part of the specification was available to anyone for free to do so. Already, Corel

and Novell have announced they will implement Open XML support in WordPerfect and OpenOffice. We understand

that others also plan to implement Open XML support because doing so is in the best interests of their customers.

On December 7, 2006, Ecma approved the adoption of Open XML as an international open standard. The vote was

nearly unanimous; of the 21 members, IBM’s was the sole dissenting vote. IBM again was the lone dissenter when Ecma

also agreed to submit Open XML as a standard for ratification by ISO/IEC JTC1. Some governments had encouraged


15

16

Ecma to seek this additional recognition to establish choice among ISO/IEC JTC1 standards,

including Open Document Format (ODF).

MicrosoftcongratulatesEcmaandthemanyparticipantsinitslabor-intensive,successful

effort. Open XML is now before ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification.

O D F a n d O p e n X M L

Some discussion of the ratification of Open XML has focused on comparisons between

it and ODF. It is important to recognize that ODF and Open XML were created with very

differentdesigngoalsandthattheyareonlytwoofmanydocumentformatstandards

inusetoday,eachofwhichhascharacteristicsthatareattractivetodifferentusersin

differentscenarios.

ODF is closely tied to OpenOffice and related products, and reflects the functionality in

those products. It was first developed in OASIS, another standardization body, before

going to ISO/IEC JTC1, and a project is currently under way in OASIS to revise the version

of ODF that went through ISO/IEC JTC1. Open XML, on the other hand, reflects the rich

set of capabilities in Office 2007, offers a platform for exciting user productivity scenarios

through user-defined schema, and was designed to be backwards compatible with

billions of existing documents. (See the Office Open XML Overview released by Ecma for

moredetailonthisstandardat

http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20Paper.pdf.)

So, although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to

addressdifferentneedsinthemarketplace.Thesearejusttwoofthemanyformatsin

use today, including PDF/A and HTML, which are already accepted as ISO standards and

supported by Office. One can see a similar dynamic in the case of digital image formats,

such as CGM, JPEG, and PNG, each of which is an ISO standard and meets different needs

inthemarketplace.

O p e n X M L a n d I S O S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n

The ISO/IEC JTC1 process for considering Open XML (called “Fast Track”) involves a one-

month period when national standards bodies can raise perceived contradictions between this and existing

or in-process ISO/IEC JTC1 activities. That’s followed by a five-month technical review and balloting process.

The time period is essentially the same as that provided for consideration of ODF in ISO/IEC JTC1. When

ODF was under consideration, Microsoft made no effort to slow down the process because we recognized

customers’ interest in the standardization of document formats. In sharp contrast, during the initial one-month

period for consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1, IBM led a global campaign urging national bodies to

demand that ISO/IEC JTC1 not even consider Open XML, because ODF had made it through ISO/IEC JTC1 first

— in other words, that Open XML should not even be considered on its technical merits because a competing

standard had already been adopted. IBM has declared victory in blocking Open XML, hyping the comments

that were filed. IBM ignores the fact that the vast majority of ISO members chose not to submit comments and

that most if not all issues will be addressed during the technical review still to come.

This campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the

standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives — and without regard

for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation. It is not a coincidence that IBM’s

Lotus Notes product, which IBM is actively promoting in the marketplace, fails to support the Open XML

international standard. If successful, the campaign to block consideration of Open XML could create a dynamic

where the first technology to the standards body, regardless of technical merit, gets to preclude other related

ones from being considered. The IBM driven effort to force ODF on users through public procurement

mandates is a further attempt to restrict choice. In XML-based file formats, which can easily interoperate

through translators and be implemented side by side in productivity software, this exclusivity makes no sense

— except to those who lack confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace on the technical merits

of their alternative standard. This campaign to limit choice and force their single standard on consumers

should be resisted.

We have listened to our customers. They want choice. They want interoperability. They want innovation. We

and others believe that Open XML achieves all these goals, and we look forward to supporting Ecma as it works

positively with national standards bodies throughout the ISO/IEC process. See OpenXMLDeveloper.org for an

indication of some of the support for Open XML and for more information on the rapidly growing community

that is developing with the Ecma Open XML standard. •


17

http://www.OpenXMLDeveloper.org

When Office Open XML went through the standardization process at

Ecma International, substantial changes were made to the specification

over the course of the intense one-year collaborative development

cycle. This made sense — the members of the Ecma technical committee

that developed the original specification invested valuable time and

expertise into the process to ensure that the final specification is a

robust, complete roadmap for working with the format. The significant

investments from this group of government and private sector 18

The Making of An Open StandardInput and flexibility are critical for the process to be effective

Tom RobertsonGeneral Manager, Interoperability & StandardsMicrosoft Corporation

Jean PaoliGeneral Manager, Interoperability & XML ArchitectureMicrosoft Corporation

August 2007


19

organizations (including Apple, Novell, Intel, Toshiba, NextPage, BP, Statoil, Essilor, Barclays Capital, the British

Library and the U.S. Library of Congress) are representative of the high quality that has gone into hundreds of

standards Ecma International has overseen throughout its nearly 50 year history.

September 2nd is the end of the ballot period and the deadline for ISO/IEC National Bodies to cast their initial

vote on whether Ecma Office Open XML should be ratified by ISO/IEC. The ballot closure is an important

milestone, but is by no means the end. September 3rd begins the final stage of the process, which will run

through what is known as the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM). This is a gathering of National Bodies and the

submitting organization (in this case, Ecma International) to discuss comments raised during the balloting stage.

The BRM is likely to be scheduled after January 2008. The ISO/IEC National Bodies will cast their final vote on

ratification a month or so later. They can cast whatever vote they like (including changing a “yes” to a “no”),

ensuring that their voice is heard throughout the entire process.

The goal of the standardization process, whether with Ecma International or ISO/IEC or another standards

body, is to refine a specification to achieve a positive consensus around its formal adoption. As such, changes

are commonplace, and reflective of the fact that no specification is perfect. With input received from technical

experts around the world, the process is designed to improve and adapt the final resulting standard.

Ecma International has made clear [http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45-M.htm] that all National

Body comments will be addressed in its response circulated in advance of the BRM, regardless of whether

they are part of a “yes,” “no,” or “abstain” vote. This is consistent with Ecma International’s interest in seeing

Office Open XML improved through the ISO/IEC process. Microsoft strongly supports a robust BRM process for

Office Open XML — regardless of the results of the September ballot. We value the thoughtful questions and

constructive criticisms raised during the balloting phase and, as a member of the Ecma International technical

committee for Office Open XML, will encourage Ecma International to propose editorial and technical changes

to the specification to address National Body comments.

We are one of several voices in the Ecma process, but at least these types of changes make sense to us.

As we have said in the past, information technology users and the IT industry that serves them should

have choice among document format standards. We believe in both the Ecma International and ISO/IEC

standardization process and look forward to the further refinement and adoption of Open XML in ISO/IEC. •

20

Independent StudiesScott F. Selby, Ph.D.Microsoft Corporation



21

Innovation in the IT industry is a key driver of local economic growth, including jobs and revenue. The power of

innovation to help a country prosper is maximized when the private sector leads initiatives such as interoperability

and the public sector supports an efficient marketplace. Conversely, imposing mandates and procurement

preferences on the marketplace limits consumer choice and freezes innovation.

These themes are demonstrated by recently published research studies brought together in this collection.

The Economic Impact of IT, Software, and the Microsoft Ecosystem on the Global Economy, conducted by the

leading global research firm IDC, proves that the innovations brought to market by Microsoft and its 500,000 local

partners are a major driver of the local economic benefits produced by the IT industry:

• Microsoft and its local partners account for 42 percent of global employment in the IT industry, or 14.7 million

people.

• Between 2007 and 2011, more than 4.5 million new software-related jobs will be created across the globe.

• In 2007, for every dollar Microsoft earns, companies that partner with Microsoft will earn an average of

$7.79 USD in revenue that will support their local economies.

• Total revenues of the Microsoft partner companies will be $424 billion USD in 2007.

• Between 2007 and 2011, more than 100,000 new companies will be created in the global IT industry; most will be

small and locally owned.

The report can be downloaded at no charge at

http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/citizenship/economicimpact/default.mspx

Breaking Down Digital Barriers: When and How ICT Interoperability Drives Innovation, jointly conducted by

The Berkman Center at Harvard Law School and the Research Center for Information Law at University of St. Gallen,

demonstrates that interoperability is generally good for consumers and drives innovation, that there is no “silver

bullet” universal solution to the issue, and that private sector leadership, more so than government intervention, is

the optimal method for ensuring that technologies work well together and innovation flourishes. Specific findings of

the research are that:

• The private sector generally should lead interoperability efforts. The public sector should stand by either to lend a

22

supportive hand or to determine if its involvement is warranted.

• Interoperability does not mean the same thing in every context. There is no universal method

(such as imposing open standards) to achieve interoperability in the ICT context. Nor is

interoperability always required.

• Interoperability can be achieved by multiple means. These include the licensing of intellectual

property, product design, collaboration with partners, development of standards, and

governmental action.

• Trying to impose universal answers can produce unintended harmful consequences. These can

include curtailing innovation, limiting consumer choice, and reducing competition.

• The best path to interoperability depends greatly upon context and which subsidiary goals matter

most. These goals can include prompting further innovation, providing consumer choice or ease of

use, and the spurring of competition in the field (such as through multiple document formats).

The research can be downloaded at no charge at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interop/

The Government at the Standards Bazaar, published in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, explains

the benefits of government restraint in mandating technology standards and provides an analytic

framework by which policy makers can consider specific cases. The paper shows why government

should be reluctant to intervene in the setting of information technology standards (and particularly,

to mandate a specific standard that has not been developed and/or widely adopted by the market)

because:

• The relevant industries are sophisticated in regard to standards setting and have many well-

developed types of standards, and forums in which to develop standards.

• The U.S. government has a strong preference for market-developed information technology

standards and promotes this preference as a matter of both domestic law and policy and foreign

trade policy.

• International trade agreements limit the degree to which participating governments can

mandate standards.

• In contrast to the sophistication of the marketplace, government is rarely as informed,

sophisticated in its understanding of the market, or nimble enough to respond to market

20



Open XML Around the

World

24

From the finance industry to preserving national records, Ecma Office Open XML has been deployed in real-life scenarios the world over in developing as well as emerging markets, by entities private and public alike. We bring you a glimpse of where the document format has made a difference.

From the finance industry to preserving national records, Ecma Office Open XML has been deployed in real-life scenarios the world over in developing as well as emerging markets, by entities private and public alike. We bring you a glimpse of where the document format has made a difference.

Open XML Around the

World

U n i t e d S t A t e SAmerican Red CrossThe American Red Cross is a humanitarian organization that provides disaster relief and helps people prepare for and respond to emergencies. It is piloting a technology solution that uses Open XML to streamline its processes for disaster response, including the process for registering displaced people at shelters.

B R A z i LConductorConductor, a credit-card processing outsourcer, runs a heterogeneous IT infrastructure internally. By leveraging the interoperability agreement between Microsoft and Novell around Open XML and OpenOffice, Conductor has eased interoperability challenges and expects to save 55 percent on hardware, energy, and support costs.

C A n A d AParks CanadaParks Canada is a decentralized government agency tasked with preserving and promoting Canada’s national parks, historic sites, and marine conservation areas — and using Ecma Office Open XML formats to streamline information and records management.

F R A n C Edassault Systèmes

Paris-based Dassault Systèmes, a world leader in collaborative product life-cycle management,

developed a proof-of-concept to manage product life cycles across function,

geography, and language based on Open XML and 2007 Microsoft Office.

25

n E W z E A L A n dCivil Aviation Authority of new zealandThe Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand leverages the automatic data update and collection capabilities of Open XML — the format of the 2007 Microsoft Office system — to increase its compliance audit accuracy and ensure greater accessibility of compliance history.

i s s u e B a c k g r o u n d e r s a n d i n d e p e n d e n t R e s e a r c h

i n d O n e S i ARanch MarketWith its migration to Microsoft Office 2007, Ranch Market, Jakarta’s high-end supermarket chain, discovered that Open XML, the default document format of Office 2007, was key in minimizing the complexity of exchanging, sharing, and preserving documents and data.

U n i t e d K i n g d O MThe national ArchivesAs the official archive for England, Wales, and the central UK government, the National Archives holds records ranging from parchment and paper scrolls to digital files and archived Web sites. The National Archives is supporting Open XML to face the challenge of digital preservation, and to raise awareness of this challenge across the whole IT industry.

J A p A nindigo Corporation Indigo Corporation developed an enterprise content management solution that enables organizations to effectively manage document components stored across an enterprise using Office Open XML.

i t A LyGruppo STRGruppo STR, an Italian IT solution provider, has developed an Office Business Application that allows users to move data between a familiar 2007 Microsoft Office environment and task-specific applications such as computer-aided design (CAD), financial management, and project planning software, based on Open XML.

G E R M A n yTGE Gas Engineering GmbHTGE Gas Engineering, a company that builds facilities for transporting and processing gas, built a solution based on Open XML formats that automatically integrates existing content with the correct internal forms, allowing TGE engineers to create highly accurate documentation in seconds.

Q A T A RAspire Sports Academy The Aspire Sports Academy implemented an internal Web site portal powered by Microsoft® Office SharePoint® Server 2007 — featuring Open XML file formats — that maximizes collaboration and streamlines content and document management processes.

S O u T H A F R i C ASasfin BankSasfin Bank deployed a business intelligence and enterprise content management solution that leverages the back-office integration of Open XML to enhance analysis capabilities and to provide its staff a single, personalized view of bank customers.

A u S T R A L i ABT Financial GroupThe BT Financial Group, the wealth management division of Westpac Banking Corporation, streamlined its business process with easy-to-use, Open XML-based electronic forms that integrate smoothly with its existing systems, reaping savings and productivity gains.

n O R d i C / B A LT i C R E G i O n TeliaSoneraTeliaSonera, the largest telecommunications provider throughout the Nordic and Baltic regions, has taken advantage of the smaller Open XML formats of the 2007 Microsoft Office system to create significantly smaller documents, minimizing the amount of storage needed as well as the associated costs of managing this data.

26

Open XML and OdF adOptiOn:Separating Fact From Fictionprinciples of neutrality and Choice Guiding Government policies

the pOwer OF ChOiCe

• Governmentsworldwidearecommittedtoprovidingsuperiorcitizenservicesande-

governmentsystems.Thiscommitmentincludesensuringtheeffectiveuseofdocument

formatstocreate,modify,andarchiveelectronicdocumentstoenablee-government

services.Becausegovernmentsandorganizationsusedataanddocumentsindifferent

ways,mostgovernmentsprovidetheircitizenswithchoiceinhowtheyaccessanduse

governmentservices.Indeed,mostgovernmentshaveembracedpublicpolicyapproaches

thatallowgovernmentagenciestochoose thedocumentformatsthatbestservetheir

needs.Notonlyischoicegoodpublicpolicy,itisalsocost-effectivepolicybecauseit

encouragescompaniestovigorouslycompeteforthegovernment’spurchasedecision,

which, in turn, ensures the efficient expenditure of public funds. Consequently, this policy

ofchoicefostersgreaterinnovation,enhancedcustomeroptions,andlowercosts.Plus,

itallowsgovernmentsandcustomerstoavoidbecomingbeholdentoonetechnology,

onestandard,oronecompany.Forthesereasonsandmore,Microsoftembraceschoice

andsupportsandmakespossibletheuseofmultipledocumentformatsinitssoftware

products.

F a c t S h e e t s

27

thatfavortheirproducts(ODFisthepreferredstandardforIBM’sandSun’ssoftware

applications)astheirprimaryvehicleof“competition.”

FaCt vs FiCtiOn

Because so much fiction and “FUD”4havebeenputforwardintheOpenXML/ODFdebate,

itisimportanttoidentifytherealfactsandsettherecordstraightbyseparatingfactfrom

fiction. Because this debate has significant public policy and customer implications, it is

importantforgovernmentsandpolicymakerstounderstandthedrivingforcesbehindthe

debate,aswellasthepolicy,industry,andmarketimplications,andtocontinuetoembrace

technologychoiceasthebestpublicpolicy.

• The FUD:Governmentsmustpickonlyonedocumentformatstandardtofoster

interoperability,competition,andinnovationandtomeettheirITneeds.

• The Facts: Choice among multiple document format standards best achieves these

importantgoals.

There are many examples in the IT marketplace where overlapping standards (even

multiple ISO/IEC standards) coexist and promote competition and innovation because

they serve distinct user requirements — notably, digital image formats(e.g.,JPEG,

PNG, CGM); digital media formats(e.g., MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.264); digital

interface standards(e.g., DVI, FireWire, HDMI, SDI, UDI, USB); digital TV formats

(e.g., 1080i, 720p, 1080p); e-mail formats(e.g., ASCII, MIME); and e-mail protocols

(e.g., x.400, SMTP, POP3, IMAP).

ISO accepted Open XML for standardization because it accepts the co-existence of

multiple standards in a single domain.

We do not live in a world of “either/or,” but rather in a world of “AND,” where

governments and customers want and deserve choices to serve their different needs

— Open XML and ODF and other formats.

Incontrast,somecompaniesandorganizationsarecurrentlyaskinggovernmentpolicy

makerstotakechoiceawayfromtheirgovernmentagenciesandcitizens,aswellas

arguingthatgovernmentsshouldlockthemselvesintooneprocurementoption.These

companiesandorganizationsincludeIBM,Sun,theODFAlliance1,theFreeSoftware

Foundation2(“FSF”),andothers,allofwhichclaimthatratherthanprovidetheir

governmentagenciesandcitizenschoices,governmentpolicymakersshouldinstead

mandate particular technology solutions to the exclusion of others. More specifically,

IBMandothersareurginggovernmentpolicymakerstolockinasingledocument

format standard called “OpenDocument Format” (“ODF”) and exclude the “Ecma

Office Open XML File Formats” (“Open XML”). This approach, however, disadvantages

governmentagenciesandcitizenswhohavenotpurchasedthemandatedtechnology

and does not enable the efficient use of taxpayer monies as there is no competitive

biddingprocessforITproductsandservices.Inanattempttojustifytheirproposed

approach, IBM and others use oversimplification and exaggeration to suggest that

governments are increasingly preferring or mandating ODF and excluding Open XML.

Butthatisfarfromthetruth.

Why are these Microsoft competitors pressing for ODF preferences/mandates? Simply

put, they are seeking to achieve through regulatory intervention what they could not

accomplish through competition in the marketplace.

WhilethefalsityofIBM’sandothers’claimsaboutOpenXMLandODFareaddressed

furtherbelow,itisworthnotingthatIBM,instarkcontrasttoMicrosoft,doesnoteven

comeclosetoprovidingthehighlevelofchoicesandsupportofmultipleformatsinits

Lotus Symphony office suite that Microsoft does in Microsoft’s Office 20073.Moreover,

ratherthancompeteinthemarketplacetowincustomers,IBM,Sun,andtheFSFhave

chosen to pursue a government regulatory strategy seeking exclusive standards mandates

1 http://www.odfalliance.org2 http://www.fsf.org3 Seehttp://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/product_faqs.jspa#4 (IBM Lotus Symphony);

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HP051860731033.aspx (Microsoft Office Word 2007); http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/HP012261711033.aspx (Microsoft Office Powerpoint 2007); http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/HP100141031033.aspx (Microsoft Office Excel 2007); http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project/HA101324981033.aspx (Microsoft Office Project 2007); and http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/access/HA100908451033.aspx (Microsoft Office Access 2007).

4 “FUD” was first defined by GeneAmdahlafterheleftIBMtofoundhisowncompany,Amdahl Corp.: “FUD is the fear, uncertainty,anddoubtthatIBMsalespeopleinstillinthemindsofpotentialcustomerswhomightbeconsideringAmdahlproducts.”(See Wikipedia FUD entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt.)

28

Particularly in the domain of document formats, there has always existed a plethora of

format standards — including HTML, TXT, DOC, PDF, WP, RTF, UOF, ODA, Compound

Document Format, and DSSSL — and yet the prior existence of these overlapping

formatswasneverabarriertotheintroductionorevolutionofnewerdocumentformat

standards. In fact, the ISO JTC 1 Directives themselves reference six different formats

— HTML, TXT, DOC, PDF, WP, and RTF — and rank them from “highly recommended” to

“notrecommended”forparticularpurposes,suchasforuseinstandards,Webbrowsing,

or complex documents. (Seehttp://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf(Sec.H4.1

and Annex HE).) Indeed, if ISO accepted the notion that there should be only one

documentformatstandard,ODF could never have become an ISO standard in the first

place! Rather, ISO accepted Open XML for standardization precisely because it believes

in the existence of multiple standards in a single domain.

Governments have long recognized the benefits of technological neutrality as evidenced

by the well-established technology neutral policies in place around the world.

Simplyput,apolicyofchoiceallowsgovernmentagenciesandcitizenstodecidewhich

documentformatsbestservetheirinterestsandneedsinvarioussituations,thereby

enhancing competition and innovation. Choice in standards just makes sense and

enhancescompetition,especially when the different standards being considered serve

different user needs and are interoperable, as is the case with ODF and Open XML.By

contrast, government mandates for particular standards to the exclusion of others

lockincertaintechnologiesandcertainvendors,deprivingagenciesandusersofthe

choice,competition,functionality,andinnovativesolutionstheydesireanddeserve.

Governments such as Chile have long recognized the benefits of technological

neutrality: In fact, in 2001 a Chilean Presidential Instruction was issued that established

theauthorityofpublicentitiestoselectonacase-by-casebasisthetechnologythat

bestmeetstheirneeds.Seealsoattachmentbelowlistingmanyothercountriesthat

haveembracedtechnologyneutralityinconnectionwithdocumentformatstandards.

Arecentindependentstudy5 by the Burton Group, a premier IT industry analyst firm,

underscorestherationaleformultipledocumentstandards,statingthatODFand

OpenXMLweredevelopedoutofdifferentdesignconsiderationsandprioritiesand

thereforearenotinterchangeable.

Document formats are like languages, and, just as would occur with spoken

languages, the right to free and complete expression in the manner of one’s own

choosing would be significantly impaired by mandating a particular document format

“language” to the exclusion of others.

Documentformatsareanalogoustospokenlanguages.Andpoliciesthatpromote

choiceamongmultipledocumentformatsarethesameaspoliciesthatenableand

encourageindividualstocommunicateinmultiplelanguages(weneedonlythink

of Switzerland, India, South Africa, Bolivia, Singapore, the United Nations, and the

European Union). Both sets of policies recognize the benefits of a rich and diverse

arrayofnationallanguagesorcommunicationstools,asthecasemaybe.Byrefusing

tomandatetheuseofjustonelanguage,forinstance,suchpoliciesembracethe

richness and diversity of expression and cultures. And translation, a low-cost solution,

works for languages and document formats alike by enabling co-existence and the

accompanying benefits of a vibrant and extensive multi-lingual world. Conversely,

what if everyone were required to speak the same language? What if one entity,

for example, forced all of us to speak only English, and even further limited it to a

particularEnglishdialect(e.g., American English)? We would all experience a terrible

sense of loss, an inability to express ourselves in our mother tongue, and a general

feelingthatsomeofourfreedom,individuality,andculturalidentityhadbeenstripped

away.Thisisanalogoustowhatwouldhappenwithmandatingjustonedocument

formatstandard.Wemustaskourselves,whywewouldeverallowoneentityora

small set of companies — IBM and Sun — to dictate the document file format we must

all use? What are IBM’s motivations? And what are the economic, social, and technical

implications of being restricted to just one document format standard?

5 http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx

F a c t S h e e t s

29

Open XML includes financial formulas for spreadsheets; ODF does not.

Open XML allows data from other systems — e.g., healthcare and financial records —

to be easily incorporated and updated in real-time; these functions are not supported

byODF.

OpenXMLsupportstechnologiesthathelpcomputeruserswithdisabilities,whereas

thelackofsuchsupportbyODFhasbeenoneofthemaincriticismsagainstitfrom

thebeginning.

The ODF technical committee has already revised the ODF specification, and says it

planstoreviseitagain,toaddresssome,butnotall,oftheabovegapsinfunctionality.

Therecentindependentstudy6bytheBurtonGroupconcludesthatbecauseODFand

OpenXMLweredevelopedoutofdifferentdesignconsiderationsandprioritiesand

thereforearenotinterchangeable,therecommendationoftheauthorsistodeploy

Open XML and use ODF “by exception rather than by default.”

• The FUD:MicrosoftispushingOpenXMLsothatitsproprietarystandardcandominate

themarketplace.

• The Facts:OpenXMLisalreadyanopenstandard,andMicrosoftpromoteschoicein

documentformats.

OpenXMLhasalreadybeenapprovedasanopenstandardbyEcmaInternational7,an

internationally respected standards organization that has developed more than 370

IT-related international standards — two-thirds of which have also been approved by

ISO/IEC.FutureversionsofOpenXMLwillbemanagedinanopenenvironmentby

Ecma and ISO JTC 1 (assuming ISO approval), notbyMicrosoft.

ISO and Ecma have publicly declared that there are no IPR issues or concerns with

Open XML. (See http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm and

http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Ecma%20responses.pdf

(Sec. 2.2).)

Document format standards and the benefits of choice in document formats are

analogous to policies regarding spoken languages. The ability to choose the

language we speak, and similarly the document format we use to save our creations,

is empowering and liberating, and a right we should not surrender.

Standardsmandatesalsoriskfreezinginnovationandtechnologydevelopment.

A notable example of the innovation-stifling dangers of government-mandated

standards occurred in the high definition television area. Japan spent 20 years

ofeffortandbillionsofdollarsonagovernment-mandated,analog-basedHDTV

standard — called “Hi-Vision” — only to wind up being quickly surpassed in the

racetowardHDTVbyAmerica,whosemarket-basedapproachtoinnovation

allowed a tiny American company — General Instrument — to develop a digital-

basedHDTVstandardthatbecamethecornerstoneoftheglobaldigitaltechnology

revolution. In short, the Digital Revolution was born and first flourished in the U.S.

preciselybecausetherewasnogovernment-directedprogramseekingapreferred

technologicaloutcomeforHDTV.WhoistosaythattheODF-OpenXMLdebate

willnotberenderedmoottomorrowwhenthemarketplaceforcefullyembraces

adocumentformatstandardnotendorsedbyagovernment(e.g.,OpenXMLas

opposedtoODF),orwhenanewdocumentformattechnologyemergesandfar

surpasses either or both? Do policy makers really want to risk billions of dollars — as

Japan did in the HDTV context — that this won’t happen?

• The FUD:OpenXMLandODFareidenticalinfocusandfunctionality,sothereisno

needtohaveboth.

• The Facts:OpenXMLandODFweredesignedwithdifferentfunctionalitytoserve

differentuserneeds.

Open XML was designed to achieve backward compatibility with billions of existing

documents,helpingtopreservecustomers’investmentsandmeettheirarchivalneeds

inanopenenvironment.Bycontrast,ODFisanarrowerdocumentformatstandard

that was designed to reflect the information created by one application (OpenOffice)

andthusfocusesonmorelimitedfunctionalitysuitableforsimplerapplications.6 http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx7 http://www.ecma-international.org

30

MicrosofthasneveropposedODFbeforegovernments,ISO,orelsewhere.Ithas

consistentlyendorsedchoice and technology neutralityandadvocatedthatgovernments

considerbothOpenXMLandODF.

Microsoft implemented Open XML in Microsoft Office 2007 and has provided freeupdates

of the new open standard for older versions of Office such as Office 2000, Office XP, and

Office 2003.

Microsofthasalsosponsoredafree Open XML-ODF Translator that enables Office 2007 and

Office 2003 to read and write ODF files. (See

http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter.)ThisTranslatormeansthatcustomers,

includinggovernmentsandcitizens,canalreadyusemultipledocumentformats.The

TranslatorenablesthesecustomersnotonlytoachieveinteroperabilitybetweenOpenXML

andODF,butalsotouseabroaderrangeofapplications.

Microsoft supports a wide range of document formats in Office 2007 — e.g.,Microsoft

Office Word 2007 supports Open XML, PDF, XPS, RTF, DOC, HTM, HTML, MHT, MHTML,

TXT,XML,WPS,andODF(thelastviatranslator),amongothers.

Theindependentstudy8bytheBurtonGrouprecognizesthelegitimacyofEcma

standardizationofOpenXMLandgiveshighmarkstothelevelofscrutinyandtransparency

thathavebeenappliedtotheprocessofstandardization.Thereporturgescustomersto

“discount the political FUD” that has been propagated, according to the authors, to curtail

— and make inroads into — Microsoft’s successful Office suite.

• The FUD:OpenXMLadoptionisslow,asgovernmentsanduserswaittoseeifISOapproves

OpenXML.

• The Facts: Global adoption, support, and momentum for Open XML are growing exponentially.

Thousandsofdevelopers,organizations,governments,andprofessionalsspanning67

countries and six continents have already expressed public support for Open XML and for

its approval by ISO/IEC. More than 2,000 members have joined OpenXMLCommunity.org,

andhundredsofindependentsoftwarevendors(“ISVs”)aredevelopingsolutionsusingOpen

8 http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx 9 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lqkrhelp/v8r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.lotus.quickr.user.dom.doc/h_AdminSecurityAdd_CreatorHelp.html10 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wpdoc/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.wp.zos.doc/wpf/dcs_info.html11 http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg2128897212 http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0705gruber/13 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9058038&source=rss_news50

XML.(See

www.openxmlcommunity.com/community.aspxand

http://openxmldeveloper.org/posts.aspx.)Asnotedearlier,Microsoft’ssupportofformats

in its office suite far exceeds IBM’s in its respective office suite.

Leading companies, such as Apple, Corel, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Novell, and Sun, have

eitheradoptedorannouncedsupportforOpenXMLintheirproductsonabroadvariety

of platforms. More specifically, here is a representative list of Open XML implementations:

Shipping:iBM (Lotus Quickr, Websphere Portal, DB2 Content Manager v8.4, and

DB2 9 pureXML); apple (MAC OS X Leopard, iWork 08, iPhone); adobe (InDesign);

Microsoft (Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, Office 2008 Mac OS X);

novell (OpenOffice); Google (Search / Preview); Mindjet (MindManager); intergen;

Open XML/ODF Translator (Open Source project on SourceForge.net); dataviz

(DocumentsToGo on Palm OS, MacLinkPlus on Mac OS X Leopard); NeoOffice; altova

(XMLSpy); MarkLogic (XML Content Server); datawatch (Monarch Pro); QuickOffice

(QuickOffice Premier 5.0 on Symbian); and altsoft(XML2PDFServer2007).

Under Development:Corel (WordPerfect); abiword; Gnome (GNumeric); Xandros;

Linspire; turbolinux; and others.

ManyPlatforms:Linux; Macintosh; windows; and handheld devices (palm OS,

Symbian,iphone,andwindows Mobile).

IBM’ssupportofOpenXMLinatleastfourofitsproducts(LotusQuickr9,Websphere

Portal10,DB2 Content Manager v8.411,andDB2 9 pureXML12)isespeciallynoteworthy(as

thisarticle13 indicates), given IBM’s vigorous opposition to Open XML and the FUD it has

been spreading — including that Open XML lacks independent implementations!IBM’s

decisiontosupportOpenXMLmakesperfectsense,giventhefeedbackithasreceived

fromitsusers.See,e.g.,

http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/supportThread.jspa?messageID=7343

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lqkrhelp/v8r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.lotus.quickr.user.dom.doc/h_AdminSecurityAdd_CreatorHelp.html

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wpdoc/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.wp.zos.doc/wpf/dcs_info.html

F a c t S h e e t s

31

(“Due to the popularity of [Microsoft] Office, it would be absurd to not feature full

compatibility, with the ability to both save and open Office files, such as the newer

.docx format … The ability to open and modify DOCX and the other Microsoft

Office Open XML document formats will be critical for corporate adoption of Lotus

Symphony.IcannotputitonaVP’scomputerifshewillnotbeabletoopenthe

DOCX MS Word document that the bank or company lawyer sends her.”)

Industry adopters of Open XML include many open source developers: Novell,

Linspire, Xandros, Gnumeric, NeoOffice, Turbolinux, and others have incorporated

OpenXMLintotheirOSSproducts.

Therecentindependentstudy14bytheBurtonGroupcallsoutOpenXMLas

“considerably more expressive” and “more ecosystem and application oriented”

than ODF, citing its support for custom schema and “full-fidelity round-trip work

flow” of documents created in Microsoft Office applications. (at page 5) The report

predicts,onthebasisofbothfunctionalitysupportedandaworldwideecosystemof

partners,thatOpenXMLwillbemoresuccessfuland“morepervasive”thanODF.(at

pages 18-19) The report’s examination of ODF’s capabilities leads the authors to the

conclusion that ODF is “insufficient for complex real-world enterprise requirements”

and its use will be limited to scenarios where there are no requirements around

complex document modelings. (at page 23) The report projects that Open XML

willbewidespreadandswiftlyfuelledbytheglobalecosystemcurrentlysupporting

Microsoft Office applications, and that ODF evolution will be “slow and complex,”

largely on account of the fact that OpenOffice.org, the primary implementation of

ODF, is arguably still, in some respects, controlled by Sun Microsystems. (at page 19)

Arecentstudy15 by IDC of 200 U.S. and EU small and large, public and private

organizations affirmed the significant adoption and momentum of the Open XML

standardworldwide:“OpenXMLisclearlypreferredinbothpublicandprivate

sectors in the United States and in Europe” (at page 11); “Open XML has created

significantly more traction in the market than other XML-based standards such as

ODF….” (at page 10); “Open XML is the standard showing the most progress over the

next year [i.e., planned pilots and deployments].” (at page 13)

Morethan20millioncompatibilitypacksthatallowusersofearlierversionsofMicrosoft

Office to work with Open XML have been downloaded. The ODF-Open XML Translator

has more than 400,000 downloads and has become one of the 25 most active projects on

SourceForge.net,whichhostsmorethan100,000opensourceprojects.

• The FUD:Governmentsaroundtheworldareembracing“pro-ODF”and“anti-OpenXML”

policies.(See,e.g.,http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Adoptions20Dec2007.pdf.)

• The Facts: Governments, customers, and leading institutions (such as Harvard and the UN)

areoverwhelminglysupportingneutralityandchoiceindocumentformatstandards.

Belowisasurveyofgovernmentsandleadinginstitutionsthathavepromotedneutrality

andchoiceindocumentformatstandards.Thissurveyhighlightsthefalsityofthe

claimsbyIBM,Sun,theODFAlliance,theFSF,andothersthatODFisincreasinglybeing

embraced and mandated by governments around the world to the exclusion of Open

XML.Infact,countriesareincreasinglyembracingchoiceandneutralityandopposing

mandates in their technical solutions, so that the varying and unique needs of users can

bemet.

prinCipLeS OF neUtraLitY and ChOiCe COntinUe tO

GUide GOVernMent pOLiCieS reLated tO dOCUMent

FOrMatS

Policymakersarefocusedonensuringtheeffectiveuseoftechnologytocreate,use,and

archivegovernmentdocuments.Becausegovernmentsneeddifferenttechnologiesto

accomplishvarioustasks(andbecausetheyarealreadyfacedwiththechallengesassociated

withthedeploymentoflegacysystemsfrommultiplevendors),theyareincreasingly

recognizingthatitisimportanttofosterinnovationandchoicethroughneutraland

competitive procurement policies that do not exclude vendors from the process. There are

manychoicesamongdocumentformatstandards,andgovernmentsunderstandthatlimiting

the choice exclusively to only one standard would impede the ability of governments to 8 http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx 9 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lqkrhelp/v8r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.lotus.quickr.user.dom.doc/h_AdminSecurityAdd_CreatorHelp.html10 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wpdoc/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.wp.zos.doc/wpf/dcs_info.html11 http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg2128897212 http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0705gruber/13 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9058038&source=rss_news50

14 http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx15 http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/documents/IDC%20Document%20Adoptions%20White%20Paper.pdf

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lqkrhelp/v8r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.lotus.quickr.user.dom.doc/h_AdminSecurityAdd_CreatorHelp.html

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wpdoc/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.wp.zos.doc/wpf/dcs_info.html

32

effectively serve their citizens, to pick the best technology for a specific need, to manage

archiveddocuments,andtoavoidtechnologyand/orvendorlock-in.Thefollowing

governmentsandleadinginstitutionshavepromotedneutralityandchoiceindocument

formatstandards.

• Switzerland:Standards group includes Open XML and ODF in policy

Switzerlandhasadoptedupdatedtechnicalguidelines16fortheimplementationofe-

governmentapplicationsandrecommendsusingbothODFandOpenXML.Thetwo

standards were approved by Switzerland’s eCH expert committee following a public

hearingonJune22,2007.

• denmark:Broad-ranging national agreement embraces both Open XML and ODF

InSeptember2007,theDanishGovernment,LocalGovernmentDenmark,andDanish

Regions concluded an agreement17ontheuseofmandatoryopenstandardsforsoftware

in the public sector. Under the agreement, all public authorities, starting on January 1,

2008,aretousesevensetsofopenstandardsfornewITsolutions,includingOpenXML

andODFfordocumentformats.

• Malaysia: Refuses to mandate a document format standard

Accordingtoreports18, Datuk Dr. Mohamad Ariffin Aton, Chief Executive of the

Malaysianstandardsbody,Sirim,saidthereisnochanceofODForOpenXMLbeing

madeamandatorystandardinMalaysia,fortworeasons.First,astandardcanonlybe

mandatorywhenpublichealthorsafetyisatstake,whichisclearlynotthecasehere,he

said.Second,amandatorystandardwouldconstituteanillicitnon-tariffbarrieragainst

software products using other document formats. Ariffin said this would violate Malaysia’s

commitments to free trade under the World Trade Organization. He added, “Ultimately,

itisuptothegeneralpublicandusersinboththepublicandprivatesectorstodecide

whichformattheywanttouse.”

• Sweden:Official inquiry considers but rejects ODF preference

An officially sponsored inquiry into standardization in the IT field resulted in this report19

whichconsideredbutrejectedanODFpreference.

• poland:Requires neutrality and prohibits preferences in technical procurement decisions

TheNational Computerization Program20 (“NCP”) for 2007-2010, which is a regulation

implementingPoland’sITAct21, establishes technological neutrality as a central requirement.

The NCP established this key priority to ensure equal treatment of different IT solutions in

publicadministrationsystems,andtoavoidpreferencesanddiscriminationamonganyofthem.

• Japan:Urges consideration of multiple standards in procurement decisions

JapanissuednewprocurementGuidelinesforITinJuly2007,establishingcompliance

with“openinternationalstandards”asonecriterionamongotherstobeconsideredin

awardinggovernmentcontracts.Inapublicstatement,thegovernmentagencyincharge

ofdraftingthenewrulesstatedthattheGuidelinesdidnotspecifyonestandardover

anotherandthattherewasnointentinformulatingtheGuidelinestoruleoutprocurement

ofMicrosoftproducts.Separately,theMinistryofEconomy,Trade,andIndustry(“METI”)

circulated a draft “framework for interoperability” that lists ODF as an example of an “open

internationalstandard,”butthedocumentwasnotadoptedasgovernmentpolicy.Moreover,

the framework specifically urged the consideration of “multiple standards” in reaching

procurementdecisions.

• italy:Repeatedly rejects preferences in open document formats

VariousregionalgovernmentsinItalyhavebeenlookingatopendocumentformatsgenerally.

Noneofthosebillshasgainedmuchsupport,however.Atacentrallevel,therehasalso

beensomediscussionoftheadoptionofODF,butnoformalactionhasbeentaken.Several

organizationsinItalyhaveconsideredODFpreferences,butdecidedagainstthem.The

NationalTradeAssociationrecentlymadeapublicstatement22onformatneutrality.

• Korea:Makes ODF optional

WhileKoreaapprovedODFasanationalstandard,eventheODFAlliancehasacknowledged23

thatKoreahasrefrainedfrommakingitsusebygovernmentagenciescompulsory.

• the netherlands:Multiple document formats can coexist

InNovember2007,theNetherlandsannounced24aninclusiveapproachtoopenstandards,

under which ODF will be used alongside “other document formats already in use.” Specifically,

16 http://www.ech.ch/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=92&Itemid=181&lang=de17 http://en.itst.dk/the-governments-it-and-telecommunications-policy/open-standards/18 http://star-techcentral.com/tech/story.asp?file=/2007/4/4/technology/20070404125811&sec=technology19 http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/45/58/fd029160.pdf20 http://www.mswia.gov.pl/portal/pl/272/21 http://www.mswia.gov.pl/portal/pl/271/3886/22 http://punto-informatico.it/p.aspx?id=1986456&r=PI23 http://www.odfalliance.org/press/Release20071120.pdf24 http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7210/469

F a c t S h e e t s

33

the central government must be able to read, write, and exchange documents in the

ODF format by April 2008. However, ODF use is not exclusive, and the government will

create a series of lists of recognized standards using a definition that should sweep in

competingformats,includingOpenXML,culminatinginthecompletelistbymid-2008.

• russia:Supports “widely used standards”

Russia has not implemented a national document format, but instead has taken steps to

mandate use of software that supports “widely used standards.” Russia’s broad language

provides the freedom to allow competing standards to thrive. In this spirit, Russia voted

Yes for ISO/IEC DIS 29600 (Ecma Office Open XML) and has also agreed to include ODF

aspartofanupdatedNationalStandardizationProgram.

• norway:Chooses an open-minded preference for open standards

TheNorwegiangovernmenthasdecided25topromotetheuseofopenstandardsin

the public sector through a gradual, phased-in implementation and expansion of an

“OpenStandardsList.”WhileOpenXMLisnotyetincludedinNorway’slistofapproved

standards, the government did not mandate the exclusive use of ODF and remains open

toevaluatingandincludingotherstandards.MicrosoftisworkingwiththeNorwegian

government and expects Open XML to join the list of permissible standards by January

1, 2009 (the date when the mandate for use of open standards takes effect).

• Belgium:Enacts a transition to interoperability

InBelgium,thegovernmentapproved26useofODFinJuly2006.Sincethen,the

government has been using plug-ins to enable Microsoft Office to read and save files

in ODF — an even-handed approach that acknowledges that different formats can

coexist and interoperate to meet different needs. Contrary to the suggestions of the

ODFAllianceandothers,theBelgiangovernment’sdecisiononODFisnotpreferential

or exclusive, and Open XML, once standardized by ISO, will be considered as a new open

standardforinclusioninBelgium’slist.

• France:ODF Alliance mischaracterizes government as favoring ODF

AlthoughtheODFAlliancehasclaimed27thatFrancehasestablishedapreferencefor

ODF, this is not true and is just the latest example of this group and other ODF enthusiasts

playingfastandloosewiththefacts.Therealityisthat,whilethereisindeedadebateabout

mandatingODFinsidetheFrenche-governmentinteroperabilityframeworktaskforce,local

andstategovernmentsandtheirnationalprofessionalorganizationsaredeeplyhostileto

suchapolicygivenitslikelynegativeimpactontheirtotalcostofownershipforsoftware

purchases.Thisiswhythelastmeetingofthee-governmentinteroperabilityframework

committee (10/12/07) ended with a lack of consensus. The next meeting is not expected to

takeplaceuntilthespringof2008.

• Croatia:Is open to multiple standards

As part of its eCroatia program, Croatia announced28thatitwilladoptODFandPDFasa

basis for electronic document exchange by public administrations. While Open XML is

not yet included in Croatia’s list of approved standards, the government did not mandate

the exclusive use of ODF and remains open to evaluating and including other standards.

Microsoft is working with the Croatian government and expects Open XML to join the list

of permissible standards over the next several months. Croatia’s approach here is consistent

withitsestablishedpolicy29oftechnologyneutralityandchoiceinthepurchaseofopen

sourceandproprietarysoftware.

• Germany:Allows technology-neutral advancement of standards

InAugust2007,Germanyvoted30toapprovewithcommentsISO’sadoptionofOpenXML.

Gerd Schürman, Director of the Fraunhofer FOKUS eGovernment Laboratory, favored31

Germany’sdecision:“ThestandardizationprocessofOpenXMLasanISOstandardwillstart

nowandresultinthetechnologicaladvancementofbothstandards,OpenXMLandODF

1.0.”

25 http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=50107726 http://presscenter.org/archive/other/2648eda677208241081d4d8e02c22975/?lang=en27 http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;135123611428 http://www.e-hrvatska.hr/sdu/hr/e-hrv/vijest.html?h=/hr/e-hrv/contentParagraph/011111111111113&c=/hr/ProgramEHrvatska/Provedba29 http://www.e-croatia.hr/repozitorij/dokumenti/downloads/Open_Source_Software_Policy.pdf30 http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=56731&menurubricid=56731&level=tpl-artikel&menuid=49589&bcrumblevel=1&contextid=din&cmstextid=65004&cmsareaid=49589&languageid=en31 http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/documents/translation_files/fraunhofer.htm

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1351236114

http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=56731&menurubricid=56731&level=tpl-artikel&menuid=49589&bcrumblevel=1&contextid=din&cmstextid=65004&cmsareaid=49589&languageid=en

U.S. StateS COnSiStentLY reJeCt MandateS FOr partiCULar

dOCUMent FOrMatS tO the eXCLUSiOn OF OtherS

• Massachusetts:Supports open document format standards without vendor or

commercial bias

InAugust2007,MassachusettsaddedOpenXMLtoitsEnterprise Technical Reference

Model’s32 (“ETRM”) list of approved standards, defeating calls for an ODF mandate. In a joint

statement33, Massachusetts Undersecretary of Administration and Finance, Henry Dormitzer,

and the Commonwealth’s Acting Chief Information Officer, Bethann Pepoli, explained that

concernsaboutcompetingdocumentstandardswere“outweighedsubstantiallybythe

benefits of moving toward open, XML-based” standards. The ETRM articulates a vision of

aservice-orientedarchitecturewhereinformationcanbeshared,reusedandrepurposed

basedonXMLtechnologies...Theavailabilityofopen,standardizedXMLdocumentformats

withoutvendorbiaswillmoveusfurtheralonginrealizingthisvision.”

• texas:ODF implementation costs too high and credibility too low

Highimplementationcosts34 helped to scuttle legislation that would have required ODF

for electronic documents in Texas. A Financial Impact Report put the five-year cost of

documentsandapplicationsconnectedtoODFinthehundredsofmillionsofdollars.

Whilepressreports35 indicatedthatODFproponentsprivatelyrelayed“gleaming”reports

about ODF implementation in Massachusetts to Texas legislators, the same proponents

refusedtoclarifypubliclyunderoaththatonlyahandfulofcomputersinMassachusetts

had actually been converted to ODF. This lack of credibility led Texas legislators, including

Jonathan Mathers, Chief Clerk for the Committee on Government Reform in the Texas

House of Representatives, to start to “question the whole bill.”

• Florida:Interoperability, not premature snap judgments, should be key

InNovember2007,theFlorida Senate Committee on Governmental Operations36

acknowledgedthatthe“mostimportantissueforagencieschoosingtechnologyis

notwhetherthatsystemisproprietaryoropensourcebutwhetherthatsystemis

interoperable.”TheFlorida House Committee on Audit & Performance37 agreedand

assertedthatitis“premature”toadoptadocumentformatstandard“beforeanindustry-

widenationalstandardhasbeenestablished.”

• Minnesota:No standard mandates without careful study

TheneedforcarefulstudytrumpedtheurgeforprematuremandateswhentheMinnesota

legislatureopted38 toengageincarefulstudyofdocumentformatstandardsinsteadof

requiring state agencies to use ODF. Don Betzold, an original sponsor of the bill, questioned39

whether he and other Minnesota legislators had enough expertise at all to choose the

technicalstandard:“Iwouldn’tknowanopendocumentformatifitbitmeonthebutt,”

Betzold said. “We’re public policy experts. [Picking technical standards] is not our job.”

• Oregon:ODF is too expensive to implement

ThehighcostsassociatedwithconversiontoODFcontributedtothefailureoflegislation40

introducedintheOregonHouseafterOregon’ssecretaryofstatequestioned41thecostof

convertingtoapplicationsthatsupportopenformats.

• Others States:Just saying no to document format mandates

Efforts to require use of certain open document formats failed to gain support in

California42andConnecticut43 aswell.

LeadinG inStitUtiOnS aLSO endOrSe teChnOLOGY ChOiCe and

neUtraLitY

• harvard Law’s Berkman Center:Endorses technology and brand neutrality in standardselection

34

32 http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/etrmv4dot0/etrmv4dot0information.rtf33 http://xml.coverpages.org/ITD-ETRMv40-Statement.html 34 http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/fiscalnotes/html/SB00446I.htm 35 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9022878 36 http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2008/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2008-130go.pdf 37 http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?PublicationType=Committees&CommitteeId=2344&Session=2008&DocumentType=Meeting%20Packets&FileName=Audit_Performance_Mtg_packet_12-12-07.pdf38 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0131&ssn=0&y=2007 39 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9022878 40 http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hb2900.dir/hb2920.intro.html 41 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9022878 42 http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1651-1700/ab_1668_cfa_20070416_103510_asm_comm.html 43 http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5299&which_year=2007&SUBMIT1.x=12&SUBMIT1.y=9

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?PublicationType=Committees&CommitteeId=2344&Session=2008&DocumentType=Meeting%20Packets&FileName=Audit_Performance_Mtg_packet_12-12-07.pdf

F a c t S h e e t s

35

Arecentreport44on interoperability and innovation by the prestigious Berkman Center

atHarvardLawSchooladvocatedchoice,neutrality,andtheavoidanceofgovernment

mandates in the standards and technology areas. Here are a few key findings of the report:

Theprivatesectorgenerallyshouldleadinteroperabilityefforts.Thepublicsector

shouldstandbyeithertolendasupportivehandortodetermineifitsinvolvement

iswarranted.“Thisistruelargelybecausetechnologicaldevelopmentislikelyto

outpace the speed with which government actors can react.” (at page 8) “Regarding

the criteria ‘efficiency’ and ‘flexibility,’ by contrast, the government-mandated

approachislikelytoperformpoorly:Administrating,monitoring,andeventually

enforcingastandardtendstocauseconsiderablecosts.Further,atraditional

government-mandated approach usually leaves very little flexibility. Not only are

governments generally ill-equipped to choose the most suitable standard, but also tend

to operate under conditions that make it difficult to respond in due time to market

developments or changes in technology.” (at page 25) (italics added)

Interoperability does not mean the same thing in every context. There is no one-

size-fits-all way (such as imposing open standards) to achieve interoperability in

the ICT context. Interoperability can be achieved by multiple means, including the

licensingofintellectualproperty,productdesign,collaborationwithpartners,and

developmentandimplementationofstandards.

The best path to interoperability depends greatly upon context and which

subsidiarygoalsmattermost,suchaspromptingfurtherinnovation,providing

consumer choice or ease of use, and the spurring of competition in the field (such

asthroughmultipledocumentformats).

Trying to impose universal answers can produce unintended consequences such as

curtailinginnovation,limitingconsumerchoice,andreducingcompetition.

ThisBerkmanreportisafollow-ontoanearlierreport45 released in 2005 by the

Berkman Center, which also acknowledged the need for governments to rely on the

marketplaceandtoavoidmandatingparticularstandardsortechnologiestothe

exclusion of others in the name of enhancing interoperability:

“Whatevertheapproach[tostandardsimplementation],pragmatismisneededtoensure

thatopenstandardsareappliedinwaysthataremarket-ledanddirectlyservethelarger

goals of an open ICT ecosystem.” (at page 22) “Limiting procurement to only officially

adopted open standards can limit the ability to exploit new technologies.”(atpage24)

(italicsadded)Thereportfurtherconcludedthat“[t]echnologyandbrandneutralityin

procurement specifications ... reduces the possibility of vendor or technology lock-in by

emphasizingchoicesandprocurementdecisionsbaseduponwhatworksbest.Itwillalso

reduce costs, increase competition and help smaller vendors to compete.” (at page 25)

• United nations report on e-Government:Embraces choice in standards

Inthis2007report46(sponsoredbyIBMandOracle)focusedonAsiancountriespursuinge-

governmentinteroperabilityframeworks,thecoreprinciplesofstandardschoiceandtechnology

neutrality — as well as the dangers of narrow government mandates — were clearly articulated:

“[T]herigidinsistenceofusinganyparticularstandardmayconstrainagovernmentfromusing

oldstandardsthatrespondtoallpreviousneedsaswellastonewones.Mandatingaparticular

technologywillnotonlypreventgovernmentfromusingthelatestandthebestbutalsoconsign

ittousingolderandperhapsoutmodedstandards.”(atpage10)

• international Chamber of Commerce:Opposes software procurement preferences

and mandates

The ICC’s leading report47concludes that ‘‘ICC opposes government procurement

preferencesandmandatesthatfavoroneformofsoftwaredevelopmentorlicensingover

others. Governments, like all potential and existing customers, should choose software on

a technology-neutral and vendor-neutral basis, examining the merits of the technology

basedupontheperformancefactorsstatedabove.Asageneralrule,governmentsshould

notdiscriminateagainstorbantheprocurementofsoftwarebasedonitslicensingor

developmentmodel.Suchpreferentialpoliciespreventpublicauthoritiesfromeffectively

weighing all relevant factors in their procurement decisions.’’ (at page 5) •

44 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interop/45 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy46 http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif/GIF-Guide.pdf47 http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/ICC/policy/e-business/Statements/373-466_open_source_software.pdf

F a c t S h e e t s

37

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

• ECMA-376—Office Open XML File Formats(OpenXML)isanopenstandardthat

wasdevelopedfromthecollaborativeworkofadozenglobalorganizationsandthat

allowsuserstocreatedocumentsthatcanberead,revised,managed,saved,stored,

anddistributedacrossabroadarrayofinteroperableapplicationsandplatforms.

• OpenXMLaddressesverydifferentneedsthantheOpenDocumentFormat(ODF)

(whichwasdevelopedbyIBMandSun,standardizedbyOASIS,andapprovedas

aninternationalstandardbyISO/IECinNovember2006)andthereforeprovides

userswithgreaterchoice.Inparticular,OpenXML’sprimarydesigngoalwastobe

backwardcompatiblewiththecontentandfunctionalitystoredinthebillionsof

documentsthathavebeencreatedinthepastandtocarrythemforwardintoan

open environment. By contrast, ODF is much more narrowly focused on reflecting

the information created by a single application (OpenOffice) and thus has more

limitedfunctionalitysuitableforsimplerapplications.

• Developers and others have welcomed the much greater functionality and flexibility

of the Open XML specification over ODF and other document formats, as well

asitscomprehensivedocumentation,whichtogetheraccountforitsimpressive

An Open Standard Driving Interoperability, Competition, Choice, and Innovation

Open XML:

6,000-pagelength.Thousandsofdevelopers,organizations,governments,and

professionals spanning 67 countries and six continents have already expressed

publicsupportforOpenXMLandforitsfurtherapprovalbyISO/IEC.

• Novell,Corel,Apple,Microsoft,Sun,andothershavealreadyadopted(or

announcedadoptionof)bothformatsfortheirproductsonavarietyofplatforms

— including Linux, Windows, Mac OS, Palm OS, Java, and .NET — thereby

demonstrating that both formats can peacefully coexist.

• Microsoft and others have taken significant steps to achieve interoperability

betweenOpenXMLandODF.Notably,theMicrosoft-fundedOpenXML-ODF

Translator can be downloaded for free and plugged into Microsoft Office and

integratedintootherapplicationstoprovideuserswiththechoiceofopeningand

savingdocumentsinODForinOpenXML.

• There are no intellectual property rights (IPR) issues or concerns with Open

XML. Through its Open Specification Promise (OSP) and Covenant Not to Sue

(CNS),Microsofthasmadearoyalty-free,irrevocablepromisenottoassertany

of its essential patent rights covering the Open XML specification against any

implementer of all or part of the specification. This IPR approach goes much

38

further in granting rights to Microsoft IPR than what is required by Ecma and ISO/IEC.

Indeed, both Ecma and ISO/IEC have publicly declared that there are no IPR issues

withOpenXML.

• When multiple overlapping standards coexist and interoperate, as is the case with

Open XML and ODF, governments, businesses, and consumers alike benefit from the

diversefunctionality,increasedinnovation,andenhancedchoicetheyprovide.

• There are many other examples in the IT marketplace where overlapping standards

(even multiple ISO/IEC standards) coexist and, in fact, are highly pro-consumer,

because they serve distinct user requirements. ISO/IEC should accordingly approve

OpenXML.

• EffortsbyIBMtoblockISO/IECapprovalofOpenXMLandtopersuadestateand

countrygovernmentstoadoptmandatesorpreferencesforODFarenothing

morethanaself-servingattempttolimitchoiceinthemarketplaceforulterior

commercialmotives—andwithoutregardforthenegativeimpactonconsumers

andinnovation.Theseeffortsshouldberesisted.

A Breakthrough for XML and Open Standards. Open XML is an open standard file

formatforwordprocessingdocuments,presentations,andspreadsheetsthatcanbe

freelyimplementedbymultiplesoftwareapplicationsonmultipleplatforms.Thework

todocumentandpublishthisopenstandardwascarriedoutbyEcmaInternational—a

highlyrespectedstandardsorganizationbasedinGenevathathasdevelopedhundreds

ofwidelyimplementedinternationalopenstandardsduringthepast46years.The

EcmaTechnicalCommittee45,whichspearheadedthiseffort,wascomposedofabroad

cross section of major industry representatives, including Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, the

British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the U.S.

LibraryofCongress.

C u r r e n t S t a t u s o f O p e n X M L

• Approval by Ecma.AttheGeneralAssemblymeetingonDecember7,2006,Ecma

ratified the Office Open XML File Formats as an open standard (ECMA-376). The

General Assembly also submitted the standard to JTC 1 of ISO/IEC for additional

approval through the ISO/IEC “Fast-Track” process. (JTC 1 is a “Joint Technical

Committee”formedbytheInternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO),

aninternationalstandard-settingbodycomposedofrepresentativesfromvarious

nationalstandardsbodies,andtheInternationalElectrotechnicalCommission

(IEC).) Processes like “Fast Track” exist so that ISO/IEC can allocate the majority of

thestandardizationworktoseparatestandardsorganizationslikeEcma.Thisway

theworktogenerateandcollaborateonthestandardcanbefullycoveredbefore

it is submitted to ISO/IEC for a final review. This allows ISO/IEC to spend more time

focusingonwhetherornottherearecontradictionsorserioustechnicalissuesthat

shouldpreventitfrombeingapprovedbyISO/IEC.Thisisverysimilartoaprocess

thatOASISwasabletousewhenitsentODFthroughISO/IEC.

• Approval by ISO/IEC. On January 5, 2007, JTC 1 circulated Open XML (named

“ISO/IEC DIS 29500” in the JTC 1 process) to national bodies for a 30-day review

todetermineiftherewereany“perceivedcontradictions”betweenOpenXMLand

existing ISO/IEC JTC 1 standards. No such contradictions were found by JTC 1,

and so on April 2, 2007, JTC 1 moved immediately to the next phase, a five-month

technicalreviewandpreliminaryballotingprocessthatconcludedonSeptember

2, 2007. Although 51 ISO members, representing 74% of all qualified votes, stated

their support for ratification of Open XML as an ISO/IEC standard, this preliminary

vote fell just short of certain thresholds required for approval by ISO. This process

now moves into the final phase during which: (1) comments accompanying the votes

willberespondedtobyEcmaandothersandthendiscussedata“ballotresolution

meeting” (BRM) in Geneva in February 2008, and (2) a final member vote on ISO/IEC

ratification will take place in March 2008.

• Status of Open XML in the Marketplace. There is significant adoption of and

supportforOpenXMLinthemarketplace.Thousandsofdevelopers,businesses,

governments, and technical professionals spanning 67 countries and six continents

have expressed their public support for Open XML and its standardization by ISO/

IEC.(Seewww.openxmlcommunity.com/community.aspxand

http://openxmldeveloper.org/posts.aspx)Leadingcompanies,suchasApple,Corel,

Microsoft,Novell,andSun,haveeitheradoptedorannouncedsupportforOpen

F a c t S h e e t s

39

XML in their products. More than 10 million compatibility packs that allow users of

earlier versions of Microsoft Office to work with Open XML have been downloaded

across the world. Finally, the 51 ISO members voting in support of Open XML at

the preliminary stage compare favorably to the 32 members supporting ODF 1.0 at

the end of its process and the 15 ISO members supporting PDF/A at the end of its

process.

K e y B e n e f i t s o f O p e n X M L

• Enhanced Interoperability.

Because the Open XML file formats are the new default formats in the 2007

Microsoft Office applications, Microsoft’s customers will be able to achieve

more seamless interoperability and data flow across their organization’s diverse

ITsystemsandapplications(fromMicrosoftandothers),aswellaswiththeir

partnersandcustomersworldwide.

TheadoptionofOpenXMLasanopenstandardbyEcmaandthesubmissionto

ISO/IEC JTC 1 are intended to further enable the use of this robust technology

independentofMicrosoftsoftware.Thestandardisfullyopenandvendor

neutral.Notably,futureupdatesandmaintenanceofthestandardwillbe

managed by Ecma and JTC 1, not by Microsoft. As a result, users will be able to

createdocumentswhosedata/contentscanberead,revised,managed,saved,

stored,anddistributedacrossabroadarrayofinteroperableapplicationsand

platforms.

OpenXMLhasbeendesignedtoachievebackwardcompatibilitywiththe

content and functionality of billions of existing documents created by more than

450 million customers using previous versions of Microsoft Office. These existing

Office users can update their existing products to use Open XML free of charge

throughcompatibilitytools.Thisapproachfurthersthegoalsupportedby

governmentsaroundtheworldofarchiving documents,whichisakeyreasonthe

standard is supported by the U.S. Library of Congress and the British Library.

• Enhanced Document Security and Integrity. Open XML offers significantly

improved damaged file recovery through modular data storage and safer documents

throughgreatercontrolofembeddedcodeandunwantedmacros.

• Compactness.OpenXMLallowsdocumentstobeupto50percentsmallerthan

their binary counterparts. The syntax is intentionally sparse to enable much faster

performance when saving and opening files than is the case with older formats.

• Extensive Documentation / Easy for Developers to Adopt. While Open XML

is much more feature-rich than other existing document formats, it also contains

comprehensivedocumentationofitsbroadarrayoffunctions/features(both

of which account for its impressive 6,000-page length), so that an experienced

developercanbegintowritesimpleOpenXMLapplicationswithinafewhoursof

beginningtoreadtheopenstandard.

• Integration with Business Data. Open XML file formats are uniquely capable

ofintegratingothertypesofsystemsanddatawithOpenXMLdocuments,while

maintainingaclean,simpleseparationofpresentation(OpenXMLmarkup)and

data(customschemas).ThismeansthatorganizationscanuseOpenXMLtoreport

information from other applications and systems without having to translate it first,

whichisakeyinnovationfordevelopersseekingtoincorporatereal-timebusiness

informationintotheirdocuments,orthosewhoseekto“tag”documentswiththeir

owncategorizationsystemtoimprovetheirunderstandingofitscontents.

• Internationalization. Open XML supports internationalization features required by

such diverse languages as Arabic, Chinese (three variants), Hebrew, Hindi, Japanese,

Korean, Russian, and Turkish, plus Unicode. In addition, Open XML has a rich set of

internationalization features that have been refined over the course of many years,

such as text orientation, text flow, number representation, date representation,

formulas, and language identifiers.

• Extensibility and Room for Innovation. OpenXMLisdesignedtoencourage

developerstocreatenewapplicationsthatwerenotcontemplatedwhenthe

Microsoft Office binary formats were defined, or even when the Open XML file

formats were initially defined. Through features built into the specification,

independent software vendors (ISVs) can extend their solutions in several promising

areas, including: document integration with line-of-business systems; automated

40

because, “IPR decisions have previously been delegated by all the ISO and IEC

members (NBs) to the CEOs of IEC and ISO, and they in turn have examined them

andfoundnooutstandingproblems.”http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm.

Ecmaissuedasimilarstatement. See


(Sec.2.2).

Likewise, Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise has received wide praise from

leadingmembersoftheopensourcecommunity.See,e.g.,

http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/openxmlmyths.aspx#myth4 (quoting Red Hat).

In short, claims that Open XML raises IPR concerns are inaccurate and should be

ignored.

• Accessibility.OpenXMLincludesrobustsupportforassistivetechnologiesthathelp

computeruserswithdisabilities.

O p e n X M L A d d r e s s e s D i f f e r e n t N e e d s

T h a n O D F a n d T h u s P r o v i d e s G r e a t e r

C h o i c e

• Open XML and ODF were created to meet very different user requirements.

Asnoted,inresponsetothedemandsofenterprisesandgovernments,Open

XMLwasdesignedtobebackwardcompatiblewiththecontentandfunctionality

of billions of existing documents, including countless government documents,

therebyhelpingtoprotectcustomers’investmentsandenhancingarchiving

capabilities.Thisbackwardcompatibilitygoalisverydemanding,anditdictated

much of the format design (and the size) of the robust specification.

Conversely, ODF (originally named “Open Office XML Format”) is a narrower file

formatthatwasnotdesignedtoachievebackwardcompatibilitywiththebillions

of existing documents in the marketplace; rather, it was developed by IBM and

Sun solely to reflect the information created by one application (OpenOffice) and

thereforefocusesonmorelimitedfunctionalitysuitableforsimplerapplications.

For example, Open XML provides a full specification of spreadsheet formulas and

many other features that are lacking in the ODF specification.

document assembly and content management; content auditing, tracking, and

regulatory compliance; file conversion tools and utilities; vertical industry Open

XML formats support; public records; and digital archival management.

• Royalty-Free Use and No IPR Concerns.Microsofthasmadeanyessentialpatent

claimsitmayhavethatcoverOpenXMLavailableonanirrevocable,royalty-free

basis to all implementers:

MicrosoftmadeinformationavailabletoEcmaregardinganyessentialpatent

claimsMicrosoftmayhaveinconnectionwithOpenXML,andthisdeclaration

was provided to JTC 1 together with the Fast-Track document.

Microsoft also submitted to ISO a “Patent Declaration Form” related to licensing

ofanyMicrosoftessentialpatentclaimsthatmaybenecessarytoimplement

OpenXML.

Pursuant to these patent declarations submitted to Ecma and ISO/IEC,

Microsofthasprovidedassurancesthatanyofitsessentialpatentclaims

covering the Open XML specification will be freely available for full or partial

implementations of the specification under three different approaches from

whichanimplementermaychoose.TheseoptionsincludeMicrosoft’sOpen

Specification Promise, Microsoft’s Covenant Not to Sue, and a royalty-free

Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) license. (See

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx;

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102134631033.aspx)

Each of these three IPR options goes far beyond the minimum licensing

requirements of both Ecma and ISO/IEC. For example, neither Ecma nor ISO/IEC

requires royalty-free patent grants, and the Microsoft Open Specification

Promise is a simple and clear way to ensure that the broadest audience

ofdevelopersandcustomers,working with either open source software or

proprietary software,canimplementOpenXMLforfree,easily,now,and

forever,withoutneedingtosignanythingorevenreferenceMicrosoft.

Both Ecma and ISO/IEC have publicly declared that there are no IPR concerns

with Open XML. For example, in a recent document explaining the upcoming

BRM process, ISO/IEC noted that IPR issues will not be discussed at the BRM,

F a c t S h e e t s

41

• Open XML and ODF can coexist even within the same software application,sothat

documentscanbeformattedandstoredusingeitherOpenXMLorODF.Indeed,

Novell’s OpenOffice already supports both ODF and Open XML, Corel recently

released a beta version of WordPerfect that supports both formats, and the open-

sourceGnumericprojectisimplementingbothformats.Microsoftimplemented

Open XML in the 2007 Microsoft Office system, provided free updates of the new

open standard for older versions of Office such as Office 2000, Office XP, and

Office 2003, and has sponsored an ODF translator (see below) that enables all those

versions of Office to read and write ODF files.

• The fact that ODF has been approved by ISO/IEC JTC 1 as an international

standard does not preclude the adoption by ISO/IEC JTC 1 of the robust, open, and

interoperableOpenXMLstandard.SuchdualadoptionisconsistentwithISO/IEC

rules, philosophy, and history. As JTC 1 found during the 30-day “contradiction”

reviewperiod,thereisnocontradictionbetweenOpenXMLandODForanyother

existing standard.

• Rather, as illustrated further below, when multiple standards in the same space can

coexist and interoperate, as is the case with Open XML and ODF, governments,

businesses, and consumers alike benefit from the diverse functionality, increased

innovation,andenhancedchoicetheyprovide.

Other Marketplace Examples of Overlapping Standards That Peacefully Coexist

and Enhance Consumer Choice and Innovation. It is quite common to have

standards (including multiple ISO/IEC standards) whose scopes overlap. The coexistence

ofandsupportforsuchstandardsiswarrantedandfostersgreaterinnovationand

consumer choice when the standards address distinct user requirements, as is the case

with Open XML and ODF and the following examples:

• Digital Media Formats

Image Data.Therearemultiplestandardsforstoringdigitalimagedata,e.g.,CGM

(an ISO/IEC standard), ASCII drawing interchange, DPX (an ANSI/SMPTE standard),

GIF, JPEG (an ISO/IEC standard), and PNG (an ISO/IEC standard), to name just a

few. Each of these formats addresses similar but overlapping requirements for

drawings,stillimages,scannedimages,animations,graphicdesigns,etc.

Video. Many overlapping standards exist to encode and compress digital video,

such as: MPEG-1 (an ISO/IEC standard) — used for video CDs; MPEG-2 (an ISO/IEC

standard)—usedforDVDsandSuper-VCDs,aswellasfordigitaltelevisionsignals

distributed by broadcasters, cable operators, and direct broadcast satellites;

MPEG-4 (an ISO/IEC standard) — good for online distribution of large videos;

and H.264 ( jointly developed by ISO/IEC and ITU-T) — created to provide higher

quality video at substantially lower bit rates than previous standards. There are

likewisealargenumberofoverlappingdigitalinterfacestandardsusedtotransfer

digital video at high speed, including FireWire (an IEEE standard), HDMI, SDI (an

ITU-R and SMPTE standard), DVI, UDI, DisplayPort (a VESA standard), and USB.

• Existing Document Formats

We have today (and will continue to need) multiple overlapping document

formatstandardstomeettheneedsofvarioususers,andseveralofthemare

existing ISO/IEC standards, including HTML, ODF, and PDF/A. Indeed, the JTC

1 Directives themselves include a list of the different types of standard formats

that may be used with JTC 1 documents distributed with different purposes (See

JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 2.0, Annex H). For example, the JTC 1 policy

references six different formats — HTML, TXT, DOC, PDF, WP, and RTF — and

ranksthemfrom“highlyrecommended”to“notrecommended”fordifferent

purposes, such as for use in standards, Web browsing, or complex documents.

Severaloftheformatsarerankedas“highlyrecommended”or“possible”for

thesamedocumentuse,underscoringthevalueofmultipledocumentformats

evenwhentheyaddressthesameneed.Likewise,Corelrecentlyannouncedthat

its new WordPerfect Office product will support both Open XML and ODF, in

addition to more than 60 other document formats.

• Digital TV Formats

In 1996, when the FCC adopted the ATSC digital TV standard, it declined to

42

mandate a specific supported video format based on the conclusion that it

would “result in greater choice and diversity of equipment, allow computer

equipment and software firms more opportunity to compete by promoting

interoperability, and result in greater consumer benefits by allowing an increase

intheavailabilityofnewproductsandservices.”Further,theFCCnoted

itspreferencefor“allowingconsumerstochoosewhichformatsaremost

importanttothem,”whichwouldhastentheadoptionofdigitalbroadcasting.

In allowing transmissions using interlace or progressive scan, in 480, 720, or

1080 lines of resolution, and in a 16-by-9 or other aspect ratio, the FCC sought

to“fostercompetitionamongthoseaspectsofthetechnologywhereweare

leastabletopredicttheoutcome,choosinginsteadtorelyuponthemarket

andconsumerdemand.”Italsoconcludedthat“allow[ing]videoformatsto

betestedanddecidedbythemarket[would]avoid[]theriskofamistaken

governmentinterventioninthemarket.”

• Wireless Standards

Of the IEEE-developed 802.11 family of wireless standards, the Wi-Fi and

Bluetoothprotocolswereoncecommonlybelievedtobeindirectcompetition

with, and mutually exclusive of, one another. In time, however, Wi-Fi and

Bluetoothwereproperlyunderstoodaslargelytargetingdifferentmarket

segments — the former, with greater range, best served home and office

networking needs; the latter, with much more limited range, became the

betterchoiceforhand-helddevicesandothersmallconsumerelectronics.Still

otheroverlappingwirelessstandardsarethoseadoptedbytheInfraredData

Association (IrDA), whose standards are for the short range exchange of data

over infrared light, for uses such as personal area networks (PANs).

IBM’s Opposition to Open XML is a Self-Serving Attempt to Limit Competition,

Consumer Choice, and Innovation. IBM was the only one of 21 Ecma committee

memberstovotenotoadopttheOffice Open XML File FormatsasanEcmaopen

standard.Moreover,duringthevariousperiodsforconsiderationofOpenXMLinISO/

IEC JTC 1, IBM has led a global campaign urging National Bodies to demand that ISO/IEC

JTC 1 not even consider Open XML, because ODF had made it through ISO/IEC JTC 1 first.

Atthesametime,IBMhasspearheadedlegislativeeffortsinvariousstatesandcountries

to have governments mandate ODF to the exclusion of Open XML. This coordinated

campaignbyIBMisablatantattempttousethestandardsandlegislativeprocessesto

limitchoiceinthemarketplaceforcompletelyself-servingcommercialmotives—and

withoutregardforthenegativeimpactonconsumersandinnovation.

• IBM hopes to block ISO/IEC ratification of Open XML to reinforce its position that ODF

should be forced on public and private sector IT users. Why is IBM pressing for this? It

isnotacoincidencethatIBM’sLotusNotesproduct,whichIBMisactivelypromoting

inthemarketplace,supportsODFbutfailstosupportOpenXML.FromIBM’s

perspective,whatistheeasiestwayforittocompetewithanotherproductthathasa

richer set of features? Get governments to mandate a document format standard that

doesnotsupportthatrichersetoffeatures.Thatway,iftheotherproduct(Microsoft

Office in this case) is forced to use the format that was designed for IBM’s product (i.e.,

ODF),IBMwillhavebroughtitscompetitordowntoitslowerleveloffunctionality—

ineffect,achievingthroughregulatoryhandicappingwhatIBMcouldnotaccomplish

inthemarketplace.

• TheIBM-drivenefforttoimposeODFonusersthroughpublicprocurementmandates

is thus an anti-consumer attempt to restrict choice. Since XML-based file formats can

beimplementedsidebysideinproductivitysoftware(asshownabove)andcaneasily

interoperate through translators (as shown below), this exclusivity makes no sense

— except to those who lack confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace

onthetechnicalmeritsoftheirsoftwareproducts.

• Likewise, IBM’s criticism of the Open XML specification as “too large” is rooted in its

concernaboutthesuperiorfunctionalityandmorecomprehensivedocumentationof

thisstandardascomparedtoODF.

• While of course there is nothing wrong with IBM or any other company promoting

its business model or seeking a profit, and while ODF should be allowed to compete

(MicrosofthasneveropposedODFasanalternativedocumentformattoOpenXML),

F a c t S h e e t s

43

theimportantpointisthatthisshouldbeaccomplishedonalevelregulatoryplaying

field through market-based competition.

• IfoneweretoacceptIBM’sviewthatonceonestandardinthedocumentformat

area is ratified by ISO/IEC (regardless of readiness, performance, quality, or purpose)

then all others should be blocked, this would create a “first to the ISO/IEC” dynamic

thatwouldstallthedevelopmentandstandardizationoffutureinnovativedocument

formattechnologiesthatenhancecustomerchoice.

• IBM’sself-servingcampaigntolimitchoiceandinnovation,andtoforceitssingle

standardandpreferredbusinessmodelonconsumers,shouldberesisted.

M i c r o s o f t h a s Ta k e n S i g n i f i c a n t S t e p s t o

A c h i e v e I n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y A m o n g O p e n

X M L , O D F, a n d O t h e r F i l e F o r m a t s

• Open XML-ODF Translator Project

In July 2006, Microsoft announced the creation of the Open XML Translator

project,whichiscreatingtoolstobuildatechnicalbridgebetweenOpenXMLand

ODF.

On January 31, 2007, the Open XML-ODF Translator project announced the

availabilityofatranslatorforwordprocessingdocuments.Availableasaplug-

in for Microsoft Word XP, 2003, and 2007, the Translator enables document

conversion between the Open XML and the ODF text formats. When plugged into

Microsoft Office Word, for example, the Translator provides customers with the

choiceofopeningandsavingdocumentsinODFratherthanthenativeOpenXML.

DevelopersofcompetingwordprocessingprogramsthatuseODFasthedefault

formatmayalsointegratethisTranslatorintotheirproductsandenableusersto

openandsavedocumentsinOpenXML.

TheTranslatorisavailableforanyonetodownloadatnocostfromtheopensource

softwaredevelopmentsite,SourceForge.net,at

http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter.SincetheTranslatorprojectwas

launched,ithasbecomeoneofthe25mostactiveprojectsonSourceForge.net,

which hosts more than 100,000 open source software projects.

ThesecondphaseoftheTranslatorproject,launchedinDecember2007,

improved upon the Translator for text documents and introduced the

conversionofspreadsheetandpresentationdocumentsbetweentheOpen

XMLandODFspreadsheetandpresentationformats.TheTranslatorisavailable

in English, Chinese, German, French, Japanese, Dutch, and Polish.

The success of the Translator (more than 385,000 downloads to date)

demonstrateshowproprietarysoftwareandopensourcesoftware

organizationscanworktogethertomeettheneedsofcustomersandhow

Open XML and ODF can coexist as open standards in actual products to

providemorechoicetocustomersanddevelopers.

InMay2007,Microsoftannouncedthecreationofanopensourceproject

between China’s Uniform Office Format (UOF) and Open XML to benefit

customers in China who need to use the UOF standard. Likewise, in July 2007,

Microsoft announced that Turbolinux, a major distributor of Linux suites in Asia,

willbejoiningtheOpenXML-ODFTranslatorprojecttohelpinthecreation

oflocalizedversionsoftheOpenXML-ODFTranslatorforAsianlanguage

countries.

TheseTranslatorprojectsaddresstheneedsofcustomerssuchasgovernments

thatmustsupportmultipleformats.TheTranslatorwillenablethesecustomers

notonlytoachieveinteroperabilitybetweendocumentformats,butalsotouse

awiderrangeofapplications.

• Andrew Hopkirk, Director of the U.K.’s National Computing Centre’s e-

Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) Programme: “This [Open

XML-ODF Translator] tool promises to be a very significant development in the

trendtowardspracticalopendocumentstandardsand,critically,customer-friendly

meanstomovebetweenthem.ItcanonlybegoodfortheITindustry’scustomers

and product and service innovators. As the UK’s e-GIF Accreditation Authority and

leadingITusermembershiporganization,theNationalComputingCentreisvery

pleasedtoseethatMicrosoft’sinteroperabilitycommitmentsarebearingfruitin

thisvitalareaandwecongratulatethemforthat.”•

E c m a I n t e r n a t i o n a l i s D e d i c a t e d t o

I T, C o m m u n i c a t i o n s , a n d C o n s u m e r

E l e c t r o n i c s S t a n d a r d s

• EcmaInternational,foundedin1961andbasedinGeneva,isaninternationally

respected not-for-profit organization dedicated to standardization in the information

and communication technology field. For additional information, visit

http://www.ecma-international.org.

• Since its founding, Ecma has developed more than 370 international standards

— two-thirds of which have also been approved by the International Organization for

Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC). Ecma is entitled

to submit its standards for “Fast-Track” approval at the Joint Technical Committee (JTC

1) of ISO/IEC. Ecma pioneered the Fast-Track process adopted by ISO/IEC.

• Ecma standards are open standards. The Ecma process is open and consensus-based.

O p e n X M L i s a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l O p e n

S t a n d a r d

• On December 7, 2006, Ecma announced that it had approved the “Office Open XML

File Formats” (Open XML) specification as an open standard named “ECMA-376.”44

Ecma International and the Adoption of Open XML as an Open Standard

F a c t S h e e t s

45

• The Technical Committee at Ecma that developed Open XML included representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital,

BP, the British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the U.S. Library of Congress. The

Technical Committee posted drafts of the standard for public review and comment.

• Ecma also submitted Open XML to JTC 1 of ISO/IEC for additional approval through the Fast-Track process. Ecma

recognized that the additional approval granted by ISO/IEC will promote further adoption of Open XML, and will create

new opportunities for technology companies around the world. Maintenance of and updates to the standard thereafter

are expected to be performed by Ecma in collaboration with JTC 1.

B e n e f i t s o f O p e n X M L

• Open XML was developed as an international open standard through the collaborative efforts of leading companies

and organizations (including competitors of Microsoft) at Ecma.

• Open XML is designed to be backward compatible with the content and functionality in billions of existing documents,

thereby enhancing interoperability and document preservation in the public and private sectors.

• The impressive 6,000-page Open XML specification provides much greater functionality and flexibility than ODF, as

well as more comprehensive documentation. This richness and thoroughness opens a world of possibilities for software

developers, empowering them to create a host of new innovations for customers.

• Microsoft has made irrevocable, royalty-free patent commitments to all implementers of Open XML, which both

Ecma and ISO/IEC have declared satisfy (and, indeed, exceed) the Ecma and ISO/IEC minimum licensing requirements.

Accordingly, there are no IPR concerns associated with Open XML.

• Any entity can thus freely implement Open XML and develop innovative, interoperable products that use the platform-

and application-neutral standard. For example, Novell, Corel, Apple, Microsoft, Sun, and others have already adopted

(or announced adoption of) Open XML in their products on a variety of platforms — including Linux, Windows, Mac

OS, Palm OS, Java, and .NET. Thousands of developers, organizations, governments, and professionals spanning 67

countries and six continents have already expressed public support for Open XML and for its further approval by ISO/

IEC.

• Open XML works with file format translators such as the Microsoft-funded Open XML-ODF Translator to translate

documents saved in Open XML to the OpenDocument Format (ODF), and vice versa.

• Open XML also accommodates multiple languages and cultures, and supports technologies that enable people with

disabilities to use computing devices. Further, Open XML allows data from other systems — e.g., healthcare and

financial records — to be easily incorporated into documents created using Open XML and to be updated in real-time;

this functionality is not present in ODF. •

Ecma International and the Adoption of Open XML as an Open Standard

O v e r v i e w

Recently, public policy makers have begun to look at technology issues that impact

how government works and serves citizens via improved e-government systems. Policy

makers are focused on ensuring the effective use of technology to create, use, and archive

government documents. Because governments need different technologies to accomplish

various tasks (and because they are already faced with the challenges associated with

the deployment of legacy systems from multiple vendors), it is important to foster

innovation and choice through neutral and competitive procurement policies that do

not exclude vendors from the process. Unfortunately, a minority of voices is arguing that

policy makers should lock in a single document format standard, called OpenDocument

Format or “ODF.” However, there are many choices among document format standards,

and limiting the choice to ODF would impede the ability of governments to effectively

serve their citizens, to pick the best technology for a specific need, and to manage

archived documents. An ODF mandate would also drive up governments’ costs and chill

competition and innovation in the IT ecosystem.

T h e Va l u e o f C h o i c e

While ODF is used by some applications, a more robust open standard called “Open

XML” is now available. This standard was developed in a technical committee of Ecma

International, a widely respected international open standards organization, and was

approved by Ecma (with an overwhelming vote of 20-1) as an international open standard

last year. Open XML is now going through the “Fast-Track” process for additional approval

by the International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical

Commission (ISO/IEC); that process should be completed in 2008. Open XML offers

numerous benefits:46

The Importance of Document

Format Choice in Government

F a c t S h e e t s

47

• Is optimized to achieve backward compatibility with billions of existing documents, including government documents,

helping to preserve customers’ investments and meet their archival needs. By contrast, ODF is a narrower document

format standard that was only designed to reflect the information created by one application (OpenOffice) and thus

focuses on more limited functionality suitable for simpler applications;

• Delivers interoperability, is platform- and application-neutral, and is supported by Novell’s OpenOffice and by Corel’s

WordPerfect offerings, as well as by products from Apple, Sun, and others;

• Enables data to be categorized in a custom way for easier searching;

• Accommodates multiple languages;

• Includes financial formulas for spreadsheets, which ODF now lacks;

• Allows data from other systems — e.g., healthcare and financial records — to be easily incorporated and to be updated

in real-time; these functions are not currently supported by ODF;

• Works with document format translators such as the freely available Open XML-ODF Translator to translate documents

saved in Open XML to ODF, and vice versa;

• Is covered by irrevocable, royalty-free patent commitments from Microsoft, which both Ecma and ISO/IEC have

declared satisfy (and, indeed, exceed) the minimum licensing requirements of Ecma and ISO/IEC. Accordingly, there are

no intellectual property rights concerns associated with Open XML; and

• Supports technologies that help computer users with disabilities.

P r o c u r e m e n t P r e f e r e n c e s o r M a n d a t e s f o r D o c u m e n t

F o r m a t s D i s s e r v e G o v e r n m e n t s a n d t h e i r C o n s t i t u e n t s

Should policy makers, then, create a preference for Open XML? The answer is no. Government would not mandate a

single vehicle for all government needs: heavy trucks, snowplows, passenger vehicles, ambulances, buses, and so on all

play different and necessary roles in government services. The same is true when it comes to document formats. The

reality is that many document formats exist to satisfy the incredible diversity of needs in software applications. Some

document formats are optimized to present a fixed representation of information so that it cannot be changed, ever.

Editable document formats are designed to maximize editability. Other formats, like spreadsheets or page layout formats,

are designed to suit the specific needs of software applications and systems. Since each of these features can be necessary

given the goals of a specific project, locking in a single document format standard simply makes no sense. Indeed, the

latest version of Corel’s WordPerfect Office indicates that it supports more than 60 different document formats. Rather,

choice among document format standards best enables governments and other customers to meet their needs, and fosters

greater competition and innovation in the IT marketplace. •

O p e n X M L A l r e a d y i s a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l

O p e n S t a n d a r d

• “ECMA-376—Office Open XML File Formats”(OpenXML)wasapprovedin2006asan

openstandardbyEcmaInternational(http://www.ecma-international.org),aGeneva-

basedstandardsorganization,afterconsensuswasachievedinacross-industry,

cross-organizationcollaborationthatincludedApple,BarclaysCapital,BP,theBritish

Library,Essilor,Intel,Microsoft,NextPage,Novell,Statoil,Toshiba,andtheU.S.Library

ofCongress.

• GovernmentsandothercustomersrequestedthatOpenXMLalsobesubmittedto

theInternationalOrganizationforStandardization/InternationalElectrotechnical

Commission(ISO/IEC)forfurtherapproval.FormalconsiderationbyaJointTechnical

Committee(JTC1)ofISO/IECiswellunderway,andapproval(targetedforMarch

2008)willenhancemarketplaceadoption,andbroadenchoice,andisfullyconsistent

withwhathasbeendoneinotherareasoftechnology(e.g.,imageformats,such

asJPEGandTIFF;digitalvideoformats,suchasMPEG-2andH.264;anddocument

formats,suchasHTML,ODF,andPDF/A),whereoverlappingstandards(including

multipleISO/IECstandards)thataddressdistinctuserneedshavebeenapprovedand

have substantially benefited customers.48

Benefits of Open XML in Preserving Historical Documents

F a c t S h e e t s

49

O p e n X M L i s P l a t f o r m I n d e p e n d e n t a n d E a s i l y C o e x i s t s

w i t h O t h e r D o c u m e n t F o r m a t s t o S e r v e D i f f e r e n t U s e r

N e e d s

• WhileMicrosoftinitiallydevelopedtheearlypredecessortoOpenXML( justasIBMandSunMicrosystemsinitially

developed ODF), Ecma participants, including Microsoft competitors, helped ensure that the final standard was fully

openandvendorneutral.

• Novell,Corel,Apple,Microsoft,Sun,andothershavealreadyadopted(orannouncedadoptionof)bothformatsfor

theirproductsonavarietyofplatforms—includingLinux,Windows,MacOS,PalmOS,Java,and.NET—thereby

demonstratingthatbothformatscanpeacefullycoexist.Thousandsofdevelopers,organizations,governments,and

professionalsspanning67countriesandsixcontinentshavealreadyexpressedpublicsupportforOpenXMLandforits

approvalbyISO/IEC.

• TheopensourceTranslatorthatMicrosoftfunded(http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter)isavailabletoanyone

atnocost;itenablesinteroperabilitybetweentheOpenXMLandODFformatsforwordprocessing,spreadsheet,and

presentationdocuments.

I m p o r t a n t F e a t u r e s S u p p o r t i n g L o n g -Te r m D o c u m e n t

R e t e n t i o n , P r e s e r v a t i o n , a n d A c c e s s i b i l i t y

• OpenXMLhasbeendesignedtobebackwardcompatiblewiththecontentandfunctionalityinbillionsofexisting

documents.Thisenhancesarchivingcapabilities,whichisoneofthekeyreasonstheopenstandardissupportedbythe

U.S.LibraryofCongressandtheBritishLibrary.

• WhenOpenXMLbecomesanISO/IECJTC1standard,maintenanceofandfutureupdatestothestandardareexpected

tobeperformedbyEcmaincollaborationwithJTC1.

• Under Microsoft’s “Open Specification Promise” (OSP), any required Microsoft patent rights are freely available to all

developersandcustomerstoimplementOpenXMLineitheropensourcesoftwareorproprietarysoftware.BothEcma

andISO/IEChavepubliclydeclaredthatMicrosoft’sOSP,aswellastwootherroyalty-freepatentlicensingalternatives

thatMicrosofthasmadeavailabletoallimplementers,satisfy(and,indeed,exceed)theEcmaandISO/IEClicensing

requirements.Likewise,leadersintheopensourcecommunityhaveapplaudedMicrosoft’sextensiveintellectual

propertyrights(IPR)commitmentstoOpenXML.Thus,therearenoIPRissuesassociatedwithOpenXMLthatshould

raiseconcernsaboutlong-termdocumentretention,preservation,oraccessibility.

• Asatrulyinternationalstandard,OpenXMLsupportsmultiplelanguagesandscripts.

• OpenXMLincludesrobustsupportforassistivetechnologiesutilizedbythosewithdisabilities.•

Benefits of Open XML in Preserving Historical Documents

T h e O p e n X M L- O D F Tr a n s l a t o r

E n a b l e s I n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y

• MicrosoftfundedthedevelopmentoftheOpenXML-

ODFTranslatorprojectasanopensourceprojecton

SourceForge.net.

• OnJanuary31,2007,theOpenXML-ODFTranslatorproject

announcedtheavailabilityofatranslatorforwordprocessing

documents.Availableasafreeplug-indownloadfrom

http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter,theTranslator

enablesdocumentconversionbetweentheOpenXMLand

OpenDocumentFormat(ODF)textformats.Whenplugged

intoMicrosoftWordXP,2003,or2007,forexample,the

Translatorprovidescustomerswiththechoiceofopeningand

savingdocumentsinODFratherthanthenativeOpenXML.

• Developersofcompetingwordprocessingprogramsthatuse

ODFasthedefaultformatmayalsointegratethisTranslator

intotheirproductsandenableuserstoopenandsave

documentsinOpenXML.50

Open XML-ODF Translator

F a c t S h e e t s

51

• NovellhasalreadymadetheTranslatoravailablewithitsversionofOpenOffice.ThisenablesOpenOffice

userstoopen/savedocumentsintheWindowsandLinuxplatformsusingOpenXML.Otherorganizations

alsohavetranslatorsunderdevelopment.

• ThesecondphaseoftheOpenXML-ODFTranslatorproject,launchedinDecember2007,improved

upontheTranslatorfortextdocumentsandintroducedtheconversionofspreadsheetandpresentation

documentsbetweentheOpenXMLandtheODFspreadsheetandpresentationformats.TheTranslatoris

availableinEnglish,Chinese,German,French,Japanese,Dutch,andPolish.

O t h e r K e y B e n e f i t s o f t h e O p e n X M L- O D F Tr a n s l a t o r

• TheTranslatoraddressestheneedsofcustomerssuchasgovernmentsthatmustsupportmultiple

documentformats.TheTranslatorwillenablethesecustomersnotonlytoachieveinteroperability

betweenOpenXMLandODF,butalsotouseawiderrangeofapplications.

• Byenablingconversionofdocumentsfromonefileformattotheother,thisfreetechnologyenhances

interoperabilityandbringsgreaterchoiceandflexibilitytothemarketfordocumentcreation,management,

andarchiving.

• ThesuccessoftheTranslator(morethan385,000downloadstodate)demonstrateshowproprietary

softwareandopensourcesoftwareorganizationscanworktogethertomeettheneedsofcustomers,

andhowOpenXMLandODFcancoexistasopenstandardsinactualproductstoprovidemorechoiceto

customersanddevelopers.

• Translationtechnologypromisestoenhancechoiceandaccessibilityoptionsfortechnologyusers,including

thosewhoaredisabled.

T h e D e v e l o p m e n t P r o c e s s o f t h e O p e n X M L- O D F

Tr a n s l a t o r

• TheMicrosoft-fundedopensourceOpenXML-ODFTranslatorprojectisbeingdevelopedbyCleverAgeof

FranceandSonataSoftwareLtd.ofIndia,andtestedbyDialogikaofGermanyandIndia-basedAztecsoft

Ltd.TheprojectwillcontinuetobeopensourcesoftwareonSourceForge.net,andfreelyavailabletoall

customersfordevelopmentoruse.

• TheopensourcesoftwarecommunityhasshownstronginterestintheTranslatorproject.Sincetheproject

waslaunched,ithasbecomeoneofthe25mostactiveprojectsonSourceForge.net,whichhostsmorethan

100,000opensourceprojects.•

Executive Summary: Microsoft has made legal commitments to Ecma International, to ISO/IEC, and to all

interested users and vendors that anyone can use and implement Open XML without intellectual property rights

(IPR) burdens. Microsoft believes that it is in everyone’s interest for this open file format to be available freely and

easily for document exchange and preservation. When Microsoft submitted and turned over control of Open XML

to the international standardization process, Microsoft also provided multiple options to ensure that its essential

patents can be used by anyone, including open source software (OSS) developers. These IPR commitments go

beyond the requirements for ISO/IEC adoption of a standard, and ISO/IEC and Ecma have stated specifically that

there are no IPR issues with Open XML.

• Any Required Microsoft Patent Rights Are Available On A Royalty-Free, Perpetual Basis To All Implementers, And

Both ISO/IEC And Ecma Have Publicly Declared that No IPR Issues Exist.

Microsoft made a patent declaration to Ecma and agreed to make any of its patents covering Open XML

available, consistent with Ecma’s “Code of Conduct for Patent Matters.” (See

http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Ecma%20responses.pdf (Sec. 2.2) and

http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm)

Microsoft also submitted to ISO/IEC a “Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration Form.” The ISO/IEC form

provides three checkboxes: (a) willing to license necessary patent claims on RAND-Z (royalty-free) terms, (b)

willing to license necessary claims on RAND (royalty-bearing) terms, and (c) unwilling to license necessary

claims under (a) or (b). (See

http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/ITU_ISO_IEC_Patent_Statement_and_Licensing_Declaration_Form.pdf)

Microsoft checked the first box. That means that if someone asks for a RAND-Z license to implement Open XML,

we must provide such a license.

Microsoft also attached to its ISO/IEC patent declaration a commitment that implementers of Open XML would

have the benefit of our “Open Specification Promise” (OSP — available in Appendix A and at

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx) and our “Covenant Not to Sue” (CNS — available in Appendix

B and at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102134631033.aspx) as an alternative, if they prefer.

Microsoft thus has gone much further than what Ecma and ISO/IEC require. Both require that a company

offer to license its necessary patent claims on RAND terms (which could include a royalty). Microsoft has

instead offered all implementers their choice between (a) a negotiated RAND-Z license, (b) the OSP, or (c) the 52

There Are No IPR Issues with

Open XML

F a c t S h e e t s

53

CNS, all three of which provide for royalty-free use of Microsoft’s necessary patent

claims.

Indeed, Ecma and ISO/IEC have publicly stated that there are no IPR concerns with

Open XML. In a document explaining the upcoming Ballot Resolution Meeting

(BRM), ISO/IEC noted that IPR issues will not be discussed, because, “IPR decisions

have previously been delegated by all the ISO/IEC and IEC members (NBs) to

the CEOs of IEC and ISO/IEC, and they in turn have examined them and found no

outstanding problems.” http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm (emphasis

added). Ecma issued a similar statement.


(Sec. 2.2).

Thus, to recap, because the BRM and comment process is designed to ensure that

the specification is fully and correctly defined, and because ISO/IEC has found no

outstanding IP issues, there are no IPR issues associated with Open XML that should

raise concerns about implementation, long-term document retention, preservation,

or accessibility.

• Adoption of Open XML — Including By the Open Source Community — is Growing

Exponentially, Underscoring that Developers and Customers are Comfortable that there

are no IPR issues with Open XML.

Thousands of developers, organizations, governments, and professionals spanning

67 countries and six continents have already expressed public support for Open

XML and for its approval by ISO/IEC.

(See www.openxmlcommunity.com/community.aspx and

http://openxmldeveloper.org/posts.aspx) More than 2,000 members have joined

OpenXMLCommunity.org, and hundreds of independent software vendors are

developing solutions using Open XML.

A growing number of implementations of Open XML — including from open source

developers — are becoming available, including those released by Apple (Mac OS

X Leopard, iWork 08, iPhone), Adobe (InDesign), Novell (OpenOffice), Microsoft

(Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000), Mindjet (MindManager), Palm,

Intergen, OpenText (LiveLink), Dataviz (DocumentsToGo on Palm OS), NeoOffice, and

Altova (XMLSpy), as well as those under development by Corel (WordPerfect), Gnome

(GNumeric), Xandros, Linspire, Turbolinux, and others. These implementations are

now available on many platforms, including Linux, Macintosh, Windows, Java, and

.NET, and handheld devices (PalmOS, Symbian, and Windows Mobile).

• Key Aspects Of Microsoft’s OSP

Any required Microsoft patent rights are freely available to all developers and

customers of Open XML in either open source software or proprietary software.

By stating that the covenant is “irrevocable,” Microsoft has assured users that there

will not be a change in company policy at any point in the future.

Vendors, distributors, and users of Open XML implementations benefit from the

OSP just like implementers do. Consequently, there is no need for implementers to

pass the promise on to others in their distribution channel, as it is always available to

everyone directly.

No one needs to sign anything or even reference Microsoft to take advantage of the

OSP.

This form of patent non-assert enables open source software implementations. It is

especially convenient for open source software developers as there is no issue as to

whether or not the IP is sub-licensable.

The OSP applies whether a party has a full or partial implementation. Parties get the

same irrevocable promise from Microsoft either way.

• Leaders In The Open Source Community Have Applauded Microsoft’s Extensive

IPR Commitments To Open XML.

“Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the

listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses. We

commend Microsoft’s efforts to reach out to representatives from the open source

community and solicit their feedback on this text, and Microsoft’s willingness to make

modifications in response to our comments.” — Mark Webbink, Deputy General

Counsel, Red Hat, Inc.

54

“I am impressed with the new covenant, and am pleased to see that Microsoft is

expanding its use of what I consider to be a highly desirable tool for facilitating

the implementation of open standards, in particular where those standards are of

interest to the open source community…I think that this move should be greeted

with approval, and that Microsoft deserves to be congratulated for this action. I

hope that the standards affected will only be the first of many that Microsoft,

and hopefully other patent owners as well, benefit with similar pledges.” — Andy

Updegrove, Standards Expert and Industry Analyst

(http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060912140103877)

“The Microsoft open specification promise is a very positive development. In the

university and open source communities, we need to know that we can implement

specifications freely. This promise will make it easier for us to implement

Web Services protocols and information cards and for them to be used in our

communities.” — RL “Bob” Morgan, Chair, Middleware Architecture Committee

for Education (MACE); Senior Technology Architect, University of Washington

• Microsoft’s OSP And CNS Are Very Similar To The IPR Commitments Of IBM And

Sun For ODF And Other Specifications.

The OSP and CNS are very similar to IBM’s Interoperability Specification Pledge

(available in Appendix C and at

http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/opensource/isplist.shtml and applicable to ODF) and

Sun’s ODF Patent Statement (available in Appendix D and at

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php).

Notably, in the key areas of (1) versions of the standard covered, (2) application

to required and optional portions, (3) non-application to referenced

technologies, (4) limitation to conforming implementations (or portions of

implementations) of the specification, and (5) definition of “necessary claims,”

the OSP is broadly similar (and in many cases identical) to the IBM and Sun IPR

commitments.

This is further evidence that Microsoft’s IPR approach for Open XML is reasonable

and common in the industry, and that attacks on it are baseless.

• FAQs

Q: Why are you applying both the CNS and the OSP to Open XML?

A: To afford greater choice to the developer, implementer, and user communities.

Microsoft formulated the CNS and made it available in October 2005. After

working with a number of members of the OSS community, Microsoft fine tuned

its covenant and launched its OSP in 2006. The OSP was created to facilitate

easier, royalty-free access to a range of Microsoft technologies and IP, including

the Open XML formats, by all developers across both proprietary and OSS

platforms. We don’t know whether some will choose the OSP over the CNS, or

vice versa, but again we wanted to make that an option for all rather than simply

terminate the CNS when the OSP came along.

Q: Why doesn’t the OSP apply to things that are merely referenced in the

specification?

A: It is a common practice that technology licenses focus on the specifics of what is

detailed in the specification(s) and exclude what are frequently called “enabling

technologies.” If we included patent claims to the enabling technology, then as

an extreme example, it could be argued that one needs computer and operating

system patents to implement almost any information technology specification.

No such broad patent licenses to referenced technologies are ever given for

specific industry standards. (See Andy Updegrove comment at

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060912140103877

(“[T]his is a common limitation ….”).)

Q: Why doesn’t the OSP apply to all versions of the standard, including future

revisions?

A: The Open Specification Promise applies to all existing versions of the

specification(s) designated on the public list posted at

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/, unless otherwise noted with respect to a

particular specification (see, for example, specific notes related to web services

specifications). This approach is common in standards licensing. Standards in the

F a c t S h e e t s

55

IT industry are generally dynamic, evolving over time through different versions

to reflect the experience of implementation and deployment, as well as the

changing nature of the environment. Since it is impossible for industry players to

predict the future environment, they are generally unwilling to make an open-

ended commitment toward such unknown matters, such as future versions of a

standard. Microsoft’s OSP, IBM’s pledge, and Sun’s covenants address the issue

of the applicability of the covenant or promise to future versions of their list of

specifications. Microsoft and IBM limit the applicability to those specifications

listed in the statement, which will be amended over time as new versions are

developed. Sun, by contrast, limits the applicability of its statement to subsequent

versions of any specification “in which development Sun participates to the point

of incurring an obligation as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant” a licence or

issue a covenant. While the former approach reflects standard industry practice,

there is obviously potential uncertainty in respect of future versions, until they

have been incorporated into the list. The latter approach, however, also generates

uncertainty, as the inquiry that the relying party has to undertake would seem

onerous, i.e., about the nature of Sun’s participation under OASIS rules.

– Andy Updegrove: “As with traditional standard setting commitments, patent

owners are wary about making open-ended promises, since in an extreme case

a competitor could seek to extend a standard to describe part of, or all of a

product of a patent owner, going far beyond what had been anticipated by the

owner at the time that it made its commitment. Although there are differences

from organization to organization, typically when a new version of a standard

is approved, a member remains bound by so much of the standard as does not

change, but is not bound by any new material that is added to it unless it is then a

member, and agrees to do so.”

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060912140103877

Q: Why does the OSP cover only “required portions” of the specification?

A: This is commonplace in the standards industry and is also how IBM’s patent

commitment works. Andy Updegrove: “This is the degree to which the great

majority of standards organizations require a commitment.” But Microsoft’s

commitment goes further by extending royalty-free access to the required

elements of optional portions of the Open XML specification as well.

Q: Why doesn’t the OSP also contain a royalty-free copyright commitment?

A: Since Ecma owns the copyright in the Open XML standard and makes the

standard freely available under copyright, a copyright license from Microsoft is

not needed for Open XML.

Q: If you just give away the IP, why do you even bother with filing patents that

relate to Open XML?

A: IPR incentive systems and patents provide individuals and companies with

incentives to create and innovate. It is a common business practice to file

patents on inventions and innovations. It often makes business sense and

is common practice for companies to license patents on royalty-free terms,

and/or contribute technologies on royalty-free terms to industry efforts such as

standardization. Often such patents and royalty-free contributions can ensure

the standards specifications are available on royalty-free terms, and “protect”

implementers from individuals or companies not participating in the standards

process who may wish to profit from the standard by charging a royalty.

Q: Is this OSP sub-licensable?

A: There is no need for sub-licensing. This promise is directly applicable to you and

everyone else who wants to use it. Accordingly, your distributees, customers

and vendors can directly take advantage of this same promise, and have the

exact same protection that you have.

Q: Can Microsoft revoke the OSP and does it ever expire?

A: No, Microsoft’s promise is an irrevocable promise. It is subject to some minimal

restrictions that are industry standard.

56

APPENDIX A

Microsoft Open Specification Promise

Available at http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

Published: September 12, 2006 | Updated: December 18, 2007

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you

for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation

to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification (“Covered Implementation”), subject

to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you

acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received

from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file,

maintain or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft

implementation of such Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not

apply with respect to any Covered Implementation of the same Covered Specification

made or used by you. 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.

This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsoft’s issued patent

claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered

Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of

any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be

deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.

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

This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications. (See

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx.) 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.

APPENDIX B

Microsoft Covenant Regarding Microsoft Office 2003

XML Reference Schemas and Ecma Office Open XML

File Formats

Available at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102134631033.aspx

Microsoft irrevocably covenants that it will not seek to enforce any of its patent claims

necessary to conform to the technical specifications for the Microsoft Office 2003

XML Reference Schemas or the Ecma Office Open XML standard (Ecma 376) (the

“Specifications”) against those conforming parts of software products. This covenant

shall not apply with respect to any person or entity that asserts, threatens, or seeks

at any time to enforce a patent right or rights against Microsoft or any of its affiliates

relating to any conforming implementation of the same Specification.

This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of the Microsoft issued patent

claims cover a conforming implementation of the Specifications or are enforceable,

or (ii) that such an implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual

property rights of any third party.

No other rights except those expressly stated in this covenant shall be deemed

granted, waived or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise. In particular,

no rights in the Microsoft Office product, including its features and capabilities, are

hereby granted except as expressly set forth in the Specifications.

Any Microsoft essential patent claims in connection with the Microsoft Office 2003

XML Reference Schemas and Ecma 376 are also available under the Microsoft Open

Specification Promise. Ecma 376 has been submitted to ISO/IEC JTC-1 for approval

under the fast-track process as ISO/IEC DIS 29500, and Microsoft’s promises under this

covenant and the Open Specification Promise apply to that document as well.

F a c t S h e e t s

57

APPENDIX C

IBM’s Interoperability Specifications Pledge

Available at http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/opensource/isplist.shtml

IBM wants to encourage broad adoption of the Covered Specifications listed below.

Therefore, IBM irrevocably covenants to you that it will not assert any Necessary

Claims1 against you for your making, using, importing, selling, or offering for sale

Covered Implementations2. However, this covenant will become void, and IBM reserves

the right to assert its Necessary Claims against you, if you (or anyone acting in concert

with you) assert any Necessary Claims against any Covered Implementations of IBM

or of any third party. This covenant is available to everyone directly from IBM, and

does not flow from you to your suppliers, business partners, distributors, customers

or others. So, if your supplier, business partner, distributor, customer or other party

independently takes an action that voids the covenant as to itself, IBM reserves the

right to assert its Necessary Claims against that party, even though this covenant will

remain in effect for you.

By making this irrevocable patent covenant with regard to the Specifications listed

below, IBM does not represent that it holds any or all Necessary Claims regarding the

Open Specifications you choose to implement.

Definitions1”Necessary Claims” are those patent claims that can not be avoided by any

commercially reasonable, compliant implementation of the Required Portions of a

Covered Specification. “Required Portions” are those portions of a specification that

must be implemented to comply with such specification. If the specification prescribes

discretionary extensions, Required Portions include those portions of the discretionary

extensions that must be implemented to comply with such discretionary extensions.

2”Covered Implementations” are those specific portions of a product (hardware,

software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered

Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered

Specification. Reference to IBM (or you) includes entities controlled by, controlling, and

under common control with IBM (or you), based on majority control.

APPENDIX D

Sun’s ODF Patent Statement

Available at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php

Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described

below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any

implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument)

v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof (“OpenDocument

Implementation”) in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an

obligation, as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant (or commit to grant) patent licenses

or make equivalent non-assertion covenants. Notwithstanding the commitment above,

Sun’s covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment

not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation

or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or

another party’s U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument

Implementation.

This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Sun’s issued patents cover an

OpenDocument Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) that an OpenDocument

Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any

third party.

No other rights except those expressly stated in this Patent Statement shall be deemed

granted, waived, or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise.

Similarly, nothing in this statement is intended to relieve Sun of its obligations, if any,

under the applicable rules of OASIS. •

Now that Open XML has been ratified as an open standard, businesses can use it as the basis of their IT systems,

safe in the knowledge that the documents they produce will be fully compatible and future proof.

– Dan Scarfe, Chief Executive Officer, Dot Net Solutions, Windsor, UK

We’re platform agnostic, open, and available to any technology, but the drive is for Open XML.

It represents the least risk, the highest reward, and the highest probability of hitting our delivery dates.

– Philip Lieberman, President, Lieberman Software Corporation, Los Angeles, USA

Editors: Nicos L. Tsilas and Scott F. Selby, Ph.D.Email questions or comments about the contents of this volume to Nicos L. Tsilas at [email protected]

For more information about Ecma Office Open XML formats, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/office/openxmlpolicyhttp://openxmlcommunity.orghttp://openxmldeveloper.org

Copyright 2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate. This document is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN THIS PUBLICATION.

Open XML - Microsoft Download Center

Documents

Transcript of Open XML - Microsoft Download Center