Dispelling Common Myths About Open XML

Myth 1: There should only be one document standard

No single file format can meet all the needs of governments, enterprises, and consumers today. Customers should have the ability to choose what format best meets their needs. Innovation and competition is best served by letting the marketplace determine the winner among competing standards. The idea that the first standard to make it through ISO should somehow be declared the winner is a bad precedent for future standards development and for competition and innovation in general.

The world is already full of examples of competing standards, even those that are intended to fulfil similar design principles. In the document format space, Open Document Format, PDF/A, UOF, HTML, and Ecma Office Open XML will all compete, regardless of whether one or all four are ultimately ratified as ISO standards.

Multiple, co-existing standards are common in the IT industry today and offer choices. For example, digital image formats, such as JPEG (there are at least three types of JPEG itself—JPEG, LPEG-LS, and JPEG 2000), PNG, and CGM (each of which is an ISO standard), meet different needs in the marketplace. Email is another example. There is X.400, SMTP, POP3, IMAP—yet people send mail without thinking about this and users are free to implement the standard they choose, based on their requirements and how well the different standards satisfy their needs.

There have been many recent comments that Microsoft and the other members of Ecma TC45 should have joined the OASIS Technical Committee working on ODF rather than creating another standard at Ecma. But Office Open XML and ODF have different underlying design principles: Ecma placed great importance on fidelity of existing legacy Office documents, whereas OASIS was actively opposed to any design principles relating to backwards compatibility with existing Office documents. Gary Edwards, current President of the ODF Foundation and a member of the OASIS TC that developed ODF, made it clear that neither Microsoft nor its backward compatibility design principle would have been welcome at OASIS. Edwards stated in a recent blog posting,

"There is no possible way anyone can claim that today's OASIS ODF TC would welcome Microsoft and make accommodating changes to the specification! No way! And the proof of this hostility can be seen in the actual dis[c]ussions and rejections of Micr[o]soft specific interoperability proposals."

Overlapping standards have always existed due to the benefits of providing consumers with the choice of choosing the standard that best meets their needs and fostering innovation. Even in the domain of document standards, there existed a plethora of standards like Open Document Architecture (ODA), DocBook, DSSSL, PDF, etc.—all of which are ISO standards, and the prior existence of which was never a barrier to the evolution of newer document format standards or their co-existence. Were this principle valid and accepted in the standards arena, ODF should never have become a standard either. Innovation drives new technologies and as these new technologies gain traction they often give rise to new standards.

Myth 2: The Office Open XML specification is flawed because it was developed in isolation

Ecma International is a non-profit industry association of technology developers, vendors, and users that submit work for approval as ISO, IEC, ISO/IEC, and ETSI standards. Since its founding 46 years ago, Ecma has developed more than 370 international standards—two-thirds of which have also been approved by the International Organization for Standardization/ International Electro technical Commission (ISO/IEC).

As a 'Category A Liaison', Ecma International has a special relationship with ISO that allows the initial three stages of standards development to take place at the Liaison, relying on the expertise of the Liaison's Technical Committee to draft the standard and debate the technical merits of various aspects of the proposed standard. The members made dozens of technical comments which ultimately resulted in the addition of hundreds of pages of additional information to the specification. Again, this is very similar to the PAS (Publicly Available Specification) process under which the ODF specification was created and ratified at OASIS and then submitted to ISO for streamlined approval.

Ecma Office Open XML was developed over the course of a year at Ecma International with input via Ecma's Technical Committee 45 (TC45), which included information technology companies (Apple, Intel, Novell, Microsoft, NextPage, Toshiba), reputable government institutions that archive documents (The British Library, the U.S. Library of Congress) and power users of information technology (BP, Statoil, Barclays Capital, Essilor). While Microsoft made a significant contribution to the development of Ecma 376, the initial draft received considerable development and enhancement through the work of Ecma TC45, resulting in the specification growing from 2,000 to 6,000 pages, which constitutes the current Ecma standard.

The number and duration of meetings held by TC45 were comparable to those held by OASIS in the course of developing the ODF specification; Office Open XML was not developed in "isolation" any more than ODF was.

Why didn't Microsoft simply work with the original ODF people to help build their specification?

There are at least four good reasons why this was not a valid option:

1. ODF started out and was largely completed as an XML format specifically supporting OpenOffice with a tight scope around that product.
2. It was not until 2005 that the ODF specification was offered up as a general XML office document format and consequently renamed to ODF.
3. No opportunity existed for Microsoft to actually participate in this full process given both the original scope and the six months between the re-naming of the spec to ODF and its subsequent approval by OASIS as a standard.
4. The scope of the ODF specification never included even the basic requirements that Microsoft required to support a fully open format and nor did the OASIS technical committee want to include these requirements. They include:
   • Spreadsheet formulas
   • Tables in presentations
   • Accessibility features
   • Custom-defined schema support
   • Custom metadata

As a starting point, we should remember that the OASIS ODF Technical Committee Charter specifically called out that the Sun OpenOffice schemas were the starting point for all work and schema, and it wasn't until much later that the name of the Technical Committee (TC) changed to "Open Document Format" or "ODF." The TC maintained a very clear and narrow focus on representing the functional capabilities of the original Sun StarOffice product.

The requirements of this charter were very different from those Microsoft had in providing an Open XML based file format that ensured backwards compatibility with binary formats and ensured interoperability with back end data sources in Line of Business systems, etc. Microsoft's aims were simply "out of scope."

The table below outlines the timeline for the standards work associated with what is now Open Document Format (ODF).

It is clear that the whole normalization work of what is now ODF occurred between November 2002 and December 2004 under the scope of OpenOffice XML. It was only after this work was already completed that OASIS made moves to position the format as a more generalized Office Document format by renaming it ODF in January 2005.

Furthermore, this is what Gary Edwards, editor of ISO 29300 ODF, said when he responded to this issue in his blog:

"The current membership of the OASIS ODF TC is clearly and unequivocally on record as opposed to the interoperability the marketplace is screaming for. The issues of "compatibility, interoperability, and convergence", as described above have been called by current TC members: "out of bounds", "out of scope", "not our problem", "let the converters and transformers deal with it", and "talk to Microsoft."

If Microsoft were to join the OASIS ODF TC today, seeking to adapt ODF to meet the legacy document-MSOffice features-line of business integration needs of their monopoly base, the TC would have to deal with the exact same issues as they have summarily rejected with current compatibility-interoperability-convergence discussions!"

Why not just harmonize ODF and OXML?

It is perhaps tempting to look at both ODF (ISO26300) and Open XML (ECMA-376) and ask how much they overlap, and therefore could they be harmonized. There are several reasons why this is not a realistic option.

History has shown that when we try to create something too generalized to accommodate too many requirements, we actually end up with something that serves nothing particularly well.

Also, Ecma was very clear about the reason for a separate specification for documents and this can be seen in their official response made after the 30-day review period.

On page 6, it states that: 1) the two formats are fundamentally different even with respect to low-level design goals (e.g. those for supporting legacy documents and conformance levels), and 2) as a result, they differ greatly in structure and architecture which cannot easily be addressed by simply adding features. Good examples can be found with the explicit page style model, table cell splitting model, full support for spreadsheet formula, and more. ODF was not designed to support the requirements of Microsoft Office—this is a minute decision of the first meeting of the ODF committee in OASIS. Also, ISO 29300 ODF editor Gary Edwards recently claimed that the OASIS committee recently decided against adding features used by Microsoft Office to ODF.

Lastly, the ISO ballot process currently underway is focused specifically on determining the ECMA-376 specification's worthiness to become an ISO standard. If harmonization is to be considered at some time, then the accepted way to do this is to agree to a "YES" vote for the ECMA-376 spec which will then see the specification under ISO control (at parity with ODF 1.0) and thereby provide the ideal mechanism to have this investigation.

Myth 3: Governments around the world are adopting ODF and rejecting Office Open XML

Recent events in the United States, Denmark, and Switzerland demonstrate that governments are increasingly declining to pass new legislation that would give a "preference" or mandate a specific file format and are instead allowing the marketplace to pick the best format or formats.

For example, the State of Massachusetts recently amended its Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM) to include Office Open XML, in addition to other formats such as ODF, PDF, TXT, as a preferred document format standard. The government of Denmark passed a similar policy recognizing both standards—Office Open XML and ODF—in June 2007.

The Swiss Federal Government announced in July 2007 adherence to standards in SAGA.ch mandatory for its departments as well as for cantons, cities and municipalities. The latest version of SAGA.ch includes both Open XML and ODF.

Moreover, in recent months, governments in six US states (Connecticut, Florida, Oregon, Texas, California, and Minnesota) have rejected legislation that would have favoured a single standard—ODF—in government procurement decisions.

Notwithstanding the balanced approach that most governments are taking with respect to procurement legislation, there is a concern that some governments may decide to favour ISO approved standards over other standards, regardless of technical merit or market adoption. So it is ultimately important that Office Open XML is on equal footing with ODF in achieving ISO approval. A positive vote for Office Open XML ultimately puts the standard on equal footing with other existing document formats such as PDF/A, ODF, and allows governments and other customers to make procurement decisions based solely on the merits of each.

Myth 4: Open XML has Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues

IPR specific concerns, in summary:

• Contributions to Ecma were made under the Ecma Code of Conduct in Patent Matters, which were in line with ISO/IEC IPR policy.
• As a member of Ecma, Microsoft has made information available to Ecma regarding any essential patent claims Microsoft may have in connection with ECMA-376, and this declaration was provided to JTC 1 together with the Fast-Track document.
• Ecma has been informed by ISO that Microsoft has also submitted to the ISO Central Secretariat a Patent Declaration Form related to licensing of any of its essential patent claims that are necessary to implement DIS 29500.
• Pursuant to such Patent Declaration Form, Microsoft has provided assurances to ITTF that any such essential claims vis-à-vis DIS 29500 will be available for full or partial implementations under three different approaches (from which an implementer can select). These options include Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, Microsoft's Covenant, and a royalty-free Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) license.

Opponents of Open XML have manufactured supposed intellectual property rights "issues" where none exists, ignoring the fact that ISO/IEC has already approved Microsoft's proposed licensing terms and refusing to acknowledge that Microsoft worked with and obtained the approval of key open source community voices in formulating its licensing approach. Additionally, these critics are conveniently forgetting that Sun Microsystems' IP covenant is nearly identical to the approach taken by Microsoft. Initially, it is important to point out that the terms of the ISO/IEC policy on IPR govern any debate about whether Microsoft has granted sufficient rights to its intellectual property relating to the Open XML formats. The relevant IPR policy requires only that Microsoft commit to licensing relevant patents under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. ISO/IEC has a new mandatory disclosure form that they required Microsoft to use in disclosing Microsoft IP and licensing terms. At this point, all relevant information has been disclosed to ISO and they are satisfied that Microsoft's licensing terms meet the ISO/IEC IPR policy. ISO has already determined that the IP provisions applying to ECMA-376 meet its IPR requirements in allowing the spec to move through to the five month ballot process.

Microsoft formulated two related mechanisms for complying with the relevant IPR policies. The first, the "Microsoft covenant regarding Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas and Ecma Office Open XML File Formats" was announced and made effective in October 2005. This initial Covenant Not to Sue (CNS) stated that Microsoft would "not seek to enforce any of its patent claims necessary to conform to the technical specifications."

After working with a number of members of the OSS community, Microsoft fine tuned its covenant and launched its Open Specification Promise (OSP) in 2006. The OSP was created to facilitate easier and more efficient access by all developers, no matter what their development model, to a range of Microsoft technologies and IP, including the Open XML formats. The OSP provides irrevocable royalty-free patent access across proprietary and OSS platforms to implement a constantly increasing number of technical specifications which support interoperability, including 38 Web service specifications, virtual hard drive formats, anti-spam technologies, and Open XML. The OSP received praise from members of the open source community.

• Mark Webbink, Deputy General Counsel of Red Hat Inc. stated: "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."

Under the OSP, Microsoft issued a Covenant Not to Sue (CNS) for all of its patent claims that a developer would necessarily infringe in implementing the Open XML specification—including all optional portions.

A detailed review and legal opinion, provided by Baker & McKenzie London, of the Microsoft covenant regarding Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas and Ecma Office Open XML File Formats can be found here. Some key points from this review:

• "...CNS is a unilateral statement to the world about Microsoft's future behaviour towards the enforcement of its patent rights contained in the Schema. While the covenant governs Microsoft's future behaviour, it is retrospective in effect, applying to any past uses of the Schema that may have been in actual or potential breach of the terms of the preceding Patent License."
• "By stating that the covenant is 'irrevocable', Microsoft has protected users against a change in company policy at any point in the future."
• "The CNS is therefore considerably more favourable to a person relying on it, than any form of patent licence because it does not impose positive restrictions on beneficiaries' activities as a condition of relying on it"
• "Microsoft's CNS is similar to a covenant issues by Sun Microsystems Inc., in September 2005, in respect of any patents that it holds in respect of the Open Document Format ('ODF') for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification. "The CNS does not affect users' rights to create their own applications using the Schema specifications. For example, there are no restrictions in the CNS that would prohibit third parties from incorporating the standard into applications they create and distribute in source code form, or for other hardware or operating-system platforms. Such applications, developed by third parties, will generally be subject to separate legal agreements, licences and covenants that the developers of those applications may impose, such as Sun's Covenant in respect of ODF."
• "Any such restrictions will be determined by the development and licensing practices of the third-party developer, not by Microsoft; and this will be as true for applications developed under the ODF standard as it is for applications incorporating the Open XML Schema standard."

Conformance to ISO Patents Policy: IBM has tried to make the distinction between the OSP applying to ECMA-376 and DIS 29500. It states that Microsoft has only made the commitment to the ECMA-376 document and not to DIS 29500. That statement is not true. Microsoft did make a patent declaration and licensing statement to ISO/IEC with respect to DIS 29500 in which Microsoft not only committed to RAND-Z (Royalty Free) licensing for DIS 29500, but also went further to include an attachment that stated that the original CNS for Open XML and the OSP were alternatives that are available at the choice of the implementer to be applied to DIS 29500.

In fact, in terms of ISO process, ISO/IEC has a new mandatory disclosure form that they asked Microsoft to use, so all necessary information has been disclosed to ISO and they are satisfied about IPR aspects of the specification. ISO has already determined that the IP provisions applying to ECMA-376 meet its requirements in allowing the specification to move through to the five month ballot process.

Just as Sun did with ODF, Microsoft is making it clear that it will not assert its patents against software that is implementing the requirements (mandatory or optional) of the standard, even if that software is not implementing the entire standard. Microsoft's pledges go far beyond what is required by the patent policy of either Ecma or ISO/IEC.

Another issue raised is that Microsoft's Covenant Not to Sue (CNS) does not cover external technologies. This is no different from Sun's CNS for ODF (available here). In particular, please note the following from Sun's CNS (emphasis added):

A quick comparison of the above with the Microsoft CNS shows they are virtually identical! 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 Microsoft 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.

Availability of the Binary File Formats

In some instances, customers may wish to have access to the original Binary Office file formats in order to more fully understand certain technical aspects. Microsoft has made provision for this openly through what is a RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) license arrangement. Furthermore, the licensed use is not limited to "analysis and forensic reference purposes." The format can be implemented in competitive applications and Microsoft provides the documentation to any competitors who request the documentation and agree to the license terms. The license is Royalty Free. The key features for this are listed below:

Binary File Format Licensing Agreements

• Microsoft uses a 'sign and return' license agreement. The agreement enables Microsoft to obtain a customer support contact from the developer of an implementation and to direct any support calls Microsoft receives about the developer's implementation to that contact. This arrangement enables Microsoft to provide better service to customers.
• The recipient, once they have signed and returned the document, are granted a royalty free copyright license to use the formats as they wish, subject to publishing a Microsoft Copyright notice with their use of the formats.
• Microsoft provides a Patent Covenant Not to Sue.
• Microsoft provides the software as is, and disclaims any warranties.