Your Documents, Your Choice: Open XML A Policy Guide

Featuring: • Governments Worldwide Enacting Choice • Dispelling Competitors’ Allegations • IP Rights Available for All Open XML Implementers • Open Innovation, Interoperability, and Economic Growth

F o r e w o r d

A Question of Choice

In the past three years, we have pushed ourselves in our engineering work and our The standardization of Open XML has made it easy for broad-based standards efforts to create an XML-based document format that can be easily shared and adoption across platforms and applications, and there is a rapidly growing integrated by governments, customers, partners, and even competitors around the world. list of governments and companies that are doing just that. Government agencies around the world are supporting Open XML, and companies The process started in 2004 when government customers asked Microsoft to help them large and small are supporting Open XML in their product suites, bringing archive their massive collections of binary documents and to standardize and openly new products to market, and creating new local economic opportunities. Competitors such as publish the Microsoft Office document format through a standards body. And policy Apple, Corel, and Novell are also supporting Open XML in their product suites. makers further encouraged Microsoft to make the Microsoft Office document format more broadly available, including to OSS implementers. 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, We listened, and our response was Open XML, a document format that is designed to competition, and growth. They need to promote policies that are technology neutral be compatible with earlier versions of Office as well as highly interoperable with other and promote choice amongst complementing and competing standards. In fact, most formats such as Open Document Format (ODF), China’s Uniform Office Format (UOF), and government policy makers around the world recognize that there are many choices among the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY). Open XML ensures that all documents document format standards, and limiting the choice to just one would impede the ability of will remain available decades into the future, regardless of the application used to access governments to effectively serve their citizens, to pick the best technology for a specific need, them. And Microsoft’s promise to make its intellectual property rights related to Open and to manage archived documents. 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, The studies in this volume demonstrate how neutral, objective, and competitive government Open XML’s availability and interoperability allow governments to deploy technologies that procurement policies that do not exclude vendors from the process promote government best meet their needs and citizens to use the technology of their own choosing to interact efficiencies, competition, innovation, and economic growth. The studies and the Open XML with their governments. fact sheets span governments and policies around the globe and provide you an overview of some of the central policy issues. 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 We hope you find them enlightening. 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 Thank you. Ecma International open standard in 2006. Open XML is now under consideration for ratification by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Chris Capossela Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in a process that is scheduled to be completed in Corporate Vice President

March 2008. Microsoft Office Team 3 C o n t e n t

F o r e w o r d 3 A Question of Choice

Section One : Issue Backgrounders and Independent Research

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.

4 C o n t e n t

C o n t e n t

Section Two : Fact Sheets

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.

5 Enabling Open Innovation and Interoperability: Recommendations for Policy Makers Nicos L. Tsilas Microsoft Corporation

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.

1. INTRODUCTION 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. OPEN INNOVATION 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

6 As recently as the 1980s, it was commonplace for companies to pursue innovations almost exclusively through I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

in-house research and development (“R&D”). A strong internal R&D program was often companies. An October 2007 IDC study found that Microsoft’s ecosystem employs 42% of regarded as a strategic asset that in some industries posed a nearly insurmountable the global IT workforce, and that in 2007 the local companies in this ecosystem will earn competitive advantage. For these reasons, the resulting intellectual property (“IP”) was more than $400 billion USD in revenues, and, in 2008, invest close to $100 billion USD in guarded jealously and not shared. Companies rarely collaborated or shared ideas, and local economies. The study also found that for every unit of revenue – dollar, euro, peso, innovation, by default, occurred in silos. An unfortunate consequence of this inward- etc. – that Microsoft will earn in 2007, other companies will earn 7.79. 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 Other leading technology companies have also embraced Open Innovation principles has since revealed that the benefits of multitudes of innovative technologies, developed and transformed the ways in which they develop, manage, and monetize their IP. IBM, by some of the world’s most advanced labs, were lost as a result. for example, has gradually moved beyond the “not-invented-here” mentality and now focuses on working with other companies to help shape externally developed Today, by contrast, the center of gravity of innovation is increasingly moving beyond the technologies (commonly in the open source arena), which are then incorporated into IBM’s centralized R&D labs of large firms to outside networks of innovators, including smaller own products. IBM’s Consulting Services Division builds on this strategy by using OSS companies and independent inventors. This is because innovation itself is becoming and helping other companies integrate and maintain these solutions. At the same time, ever-more heterogeneous, fragmented, and unruly, and few if any companies today can IBM no longer seeks to deploy all of its innovations exclusively within its own products hold all the pieces of even their own product technology in their own hands. This new and services. In making its technologies available on the open market, IBM earns a paradigm that is transforming today’s IT industry has been aptly described by Berkeley significant portion of its revenue (more than $1 billion USD annually) through licensing its Professor Henry Chesbrough as “Open Innovation.” In the Open Innovation paradigm, IP externally to partners and competitors alike. Microsoft, IBM, and others pursue such firms are discovering that they simply must collaborate with others if they want to survive collaborations and licensing because Open Innovation is essential to competitiveness, and prosper in today’s increasingly diverse, multi-polar, and inter-connected technology revenues, and effectively meeting customers’ needs. environment, and IP is the cornerstone enabling this collaboration. 2.2. Avoiding Technology Mandates and Promoting Microsoft, like many other IT companies, is committed to, and spends billions of Choice and Neutrality dollars on, Open Innovation efforts with other firms. Microsoft has been building and Open innovation and the ever-evolving mix of business models pursued by competing leveraging its IP portfolio not primarily for money, but for relationships that enable it to companies highlight how dynamic the IT environment is and how marketplace forces are develop products to meet customer needs — relationships with large firms, small firms, driving greater competition and innovation. open source software (“OSS”) firms, proprietary firms, venture capitalists, economic ** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: In such a highly dynamic development agencies, inventors, software developers, and technologists of all sorts. In marketplace, governments and policy makers should refrain from mandating any fact, Microsoft spends orders of magnitude more licensing in the IP of others — more particular technology or business/licensing model in their procurement decisions. Locking than $1.4 billion USD so far — than it will ever receive for the licensing out of its IP to in specific technology mandates locks out innovation. Rather, they should develop policies others. Through its partner-focused business model, and initiatives like “IP Ventures,” that are neutral with respect to competing technologies and business/licensing models

Microsoft today works with more than 750,000 hardware, software, and services and that allow for choice of either (or all) based on reasonable, objective criteria. 7 A notable example of the potential innovation-stifling dangers of government-mandated Patented technology innovation, for example, accounts for more than half the growth technologies occurred in the high definition television (“HDTV”) area. Japan spent 20 years of the U.S. economy (and some studies suggest it may be closer to 80% of economic of effort and billions of dollars on a government-mandated, analog-based HDTV standard growth) (Schacht, 2000). Further, in today’s knowledge-based economy, the trade in ideas — called “Hi-Vision” — only to wind up being quickly surpassed in the race toward HDTV through patent licensing is growing at twice the rate of the trade in goods (ICC, 2005). by America, whose laissez-faire, market-based approach to innovation allowed a tiny Economists have found that, worldwide, it is not capital resources or industrial capacity or American company — General Instrument — to develop a digital-based HDTV standard even educational infrastructure, but rather the strength of a country’s IP incentive system that became the cornerstone of the global digital technology revolution. In short, the that is the principal driver of innovation and economic growth across the globe. As one Digital Revolution was born and first flourished in the U.S. precisely because there wasno study from the National Bureau of Economic Research noted, in the absence of IP incentive government-directed program seeking a preferred technological outcome for HDTV. 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 Of course, governments today face similar decisions. Should they endorse Open Document invent for themselves. 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 However, while IP’s indispensable role as a global engine of prosperity has remained justified because these are different standards serving different user needs, but who is unchanged, the manner and nature of its use have undergone a profound transformation. to say that the ODF-Open XML debate will not be rendered moot tomorrow when a new The key change is that under the Open Innovation model, IP’s power to exclude document format technology far surpasses either or both? Do policy makers really want to competitors, although certainly still important, is increasingly being replaced by its risk billions of dollars — as Japan did in the HDTV context — that this won’t happen? 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 For this reason, in 1996, when the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) fact, Open Innovation itself would literally be impossible without IP. Without strong and adopted a digital broadcast standard, it declined to mandate a single video format based clear IP rights, firms would resist sharing their ideas out of fear that competitors would on the conclusion that it would “result in greater choice and diversity of equipment, allow steal their innovations, and the whole process would break down. But with such rights, computer equipment and software firms more opportunity to compete by promoting firms can share their innovations with each other secure in the knowledge that each is interoperability, and result in greater consumer benefits by allowing an increase in the fully protected in deploying them to mutual advantage. Just as good fences make good availability of new products and services.” Further, the FCC concluded that “allow[ing] neighbors, strong IP makes for strong and successful Open Innovation collaborations. video formats to be tested and decided by the market [would] avoid[] the risk of a Indeed, in today’s world, IP’s so-called “fence” has become much more of a bridge to mistaken government intervention in the market….”1 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 2.3. Protecting IP is Essential for Fostering Greater strategy for accelerating innovation over the next two years” is to increase patent licensing Innovation and other IP-enabled collaboration with outside firms. More than 100 years of economic research has proven beyond a doubt that intellectual 1 Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, 11 FCC Rcd 17771, ¶¶ 39, 42 8 property rights are the indispensable engine of innovation and economic growth. (1996). I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: Enable healthy IP incentive effectively exchange and use information. In a nutshell, interoperability is connecting systems. Adopt and enforce strong yet flexible IP protections as a key to facilitating people, data, and diverse systems. Interoperability can be divided into two general greater innovation, collaboration, and economic growth. 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 Although all IT companies rely to some extent on the value and opportunities IP creates, and government in advancing interoperability goals. 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; 3.1. The Four Pillars of Technical Interoperability or (2) mandate/prefer technologies developed under an OSS model. It is important to Technical interoperability is the ability of heterogeneous IT networks, applications, realize that these companies are telling only half the story. While they want governments or components to exchange and use information, i.e., to talk to and understand each to force others to waive their IP rights, they do not want such waivers to apply to their own other (Newton, 2005). There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution pursued by IT companies IP rights or the IP rights of their customers. These advocates are able to advance these IP for achieving technical interoperability. Rather, the IT industry has achieved its current waiver proposals because their business models may not be predicated on, for example, unparalleled level of interoperability through the use of four complementary and time- software patents for which waivers are sought, but rather on royalties for use of other IP, tested methods, or “pillars.” The four pillars of technical interoperability are: or revenues from the installation, integration, maintenance, and training for such software products. (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 ** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: Do not be misled by entities services; advocating “IP-free” procurement mandates or preferences, because such entities often (ii) Community - involves working with the IT community, including partners, customers, are telling only half the story, and such regulatory proposals are often part of a strategy to and competitors alike; bolster the proponent’s own business plan, which may be focused on other IP elements to (iii) Access - involves providing and gaining access to technology through the licensing of IP enhance its bottom line. In addition, limiting or waiving IP rights will only serve to dampen such as patents and copyrights; parties’ incentives to innovate, thereby harming consumers and economic growth. (iv) Standards - involves developing and implementing industry standards (including both “open standards” and broadly accessible “proprietary standards”). 3. INTEROPERABILITY In recent times, both private and public sector customers have identified interoperability All vendors accomplish interoperability via these four pillars. But depending upon a as an increasingly desired feature of IT products and services, ranking it with security and company’s specific business model, it may emphasize one or more pillars to a greater reliability. Interoperability, however, means many things to different people, and levels of 2 In certain contexts, such as document formats, interoperability may be deemed by the user to be just as important as 2 interoperability will vary based on numerous factors. Therefore, it is worth examining in 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, greater detail. 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 Interoperability is the ability of people, organizations, and systems to efficiently and participants. 9 degree than the others. For example, although Microsoft uses all four pillars in different In short, while open standards are one way to achieve interoperability, they are clearly not situations, it focuses on accomplishing interoperability through the explicit design of the only way or even necessarily the best way in a given situation. 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) ** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: In order to maximize the to deliver products that are interoperable by design, interoperable out of the box. By level of interoperability, governments should embrace a policy that allows for choice contrast, other companies (e.g., IBM, Red Hat) have a core business model that focuses by their software procurement and other divisions seeking interoperability solutions more on the generation of revenue through IT consulting, integration, training, and — choice as to which one of the above four pillars, or combination of them, is the best maintenance services (i.e., interoperability by the hour). Since such companies make means of achieving interoperability in a given situation; choice regarding which open money by stitching together various hardware and software products, they are not as standard(s) and/or proprietary standard(s) to rely on under the circumstances; and interested in pursuing or endorsing products that are interoperable right out of the choice between open source software and proprietary software in the procurement box, but rather support new standards and new software models in order to replace or process. This flexible approach predicated on choice is particularly appropriate in the supplement existing interoperable solutions and thereby create a greater need for their rapidly converging IT world, in which customers and governments increasingly rely on services. Such companies often, for example, promote OSS, patent-free and royalty- a combination of proprietary and open source software, as well as open standards and free open standards, and compulsory IP licensing as a way of commoditizing and proprietary standards, to develop an ideal interoperability strategy. 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 3.2. People Interoperability higher margins for their core consulting, integration, maintenance, and training services People interoperability encompasses the less tangible and often more complex issues of businesses. organizational, semantic, and policy interoperability.

In recent times, there has been an overemphasis on open standards as the best or only 3.2.1. Organizational Interoperability way to achieve interoperability. Two key drivers for this misguided approach are: (1) the This is the aspect of interoperability concerned with defining business goals, modeling fact that, as noted, certain companies use standards to promote their own business model business processes, and bringing about the collaboration of organizations, such as and therefore aggressively urge governments to favor this approach; and (2) the practices ministries, bureaus, departments of state, and national governments, that wish to and focus of the hardware world carrying over to the software world. Most non-technical exchange information and may have different internal structures and processes. people think of interoperability and assume that the limitations of the physical world also Organizational interoperability entails defining and focusing on the project objective apply to software. While in the physical world (e.g., train tracks, power outlets, or pipe regardless of ownership, location, make, version, or design of the IT systems being used. 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 3.2.2. Semantic Interoperability is free of physical bounds, and software interoperability can therefore be accomplished This is the aspect of interoperability concerned with ensuring that the precise meaning in ways other than standards, such as through the use of translators and converters. For of exchanged information is understandable by any other application that was not

10 example, translators already exist to ensure interoperability between ODF and Open XML. initially developed for this purpose. It involves the definition of a common language I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

and vocabularies so that two or more organizations and computer systems can exchange others. Rather, a policy of choice and technological neutrality is the best approach. Finally, information and ensure consistency in the way such information is represented and governments should focus their efforts on people interoperability initiatives and allow the understood. industry and market forces to lead in solving technical interoperability issues.

3.2.3. Policy Interoperability 5. REFERENCES This is the aspect of interoperability concerned with the legal or business policies that Baird, S., The Government at the Standards Bazaar (18 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 35 (2007)) need to be in place between organizations, states, and/or countries to ensure the accurate, (describing the five parts of the “interoperability ecosystem” and government’s optimal reliable, and meaningful exchange of information. Common policies that are often a focus role). for governments deploying e-government systems and looking to improve interoperability include accessibility, privacy, security, and multilingualism. 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 Governments are often best suited to promote people interoperability, and can help 23 (1997). the interoperability ecosystem by improving areas where they have direct (and perhaps exclusive) influence, most notably in the often more complex areas of organizational, Chesbrough, H., Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from semantic, and policy interoperability. A key problem governments and procurement Technology, at xx, xxiv, 56, 93-112, 113-133 (Harv. Bus. Sch. Press 2006). officials typically face is that they focus too heavily on thetechnical interoperability issues (such as whether to mandate or prefer ODF over Open XML or OSS solutions over The Economist, The Value of Knowledge: European Firms and the Intellectual Property proprietary software solutions), which the IT industry is already well-equipped to address. Challenge, an Economist Intelligence Unit white paper sponsored by Qualcomm (January, 2007), at 13. ** Recommendation for Governments and Policy Makers: Focus on the people interoperability issues that they are better equipped to resolve, and allow the IT industry International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), Intellectual Property: Source of Innovation, and competitive market forces to drive the best technical interoperability solutions. Creativity, Growth and Progress (August, 2005).

4. CONCLUSION Schacht, W., Industrial Competitiveness and Technological Advancement: Debate Over IP is a key enabler of greater innovation and interoperability in the IT marketplace. In the Government Policy, The National Council for Science and the Environment (September, new world of Open Innovation, IP’s power to exclude is increasingly being replaced by its 2000). • 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, 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 competition, and economic growth, governments should establish strong IP protection 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. frameworks and avoid regulatory approaches and procurement decisions that waive IP 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, rights or mandate particular technologies or business/licensing models to the exclusion of December 10-13, 2007, Macao Copyright 2007 ACM 978-1-59593-822 -0/07/12. 11 12 I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

Interoperability, Choice, and Open XML

Tom Robertson General Manager, Interoperability & Standards Microsoft Corporation

Jean Paoli General Manager, Interoperability & XML Architecture Microsoft Corporation

February 2007

Interoperability and Microsoft Over the past year, Microsoft has stepped up efforts to identify and meet the interoperability needs of our customers. Among other things, we have launched the Interoperability Executive Customer Council, made up of senior CIOs from the public and private sectors around the world, who are working closely with us to help us understand their most critical needs. We have also worked with others to found the Interoperability Vendor Alliance, built interoperability collaborations with vendors such as Novell and JBoss, delivered the Open Specification Promise, and supported Open XML’s becoming an international standard. All of these represent an ongoing commitment to delivering interoperability by design through

consistent, customer-focused activities. 13 Microsoft understands that addressing interoperability involves drawing upon a variety of tools. We are deploying all of them: designing products so that they are interoperable with other products out of the box, without need for extensive consulting services; collaborating with others in the community to jointly solve interoperability challenges; broadening the ways we provide access to our technologies so that others can create interoperable solutions; and participating in efforts to develop standards that create common solutions to interoperability challenges.

A lot of hype — and smoke and mirrors obfuscation — surrounds interoperability these days. The best way to cut through it is to focus on what is really happening, what steps are actually being taken, rather than the rhetoric. A good example is the debate surrounding document file formats.

Document Fo rmats and XML In document formats, customers have said loud and clear that they want interoperability, choice, and innovation. On these criteria, Microsoft has 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 vendors to create high-value applications. Microsoft has increasingly 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 supported multiple formats.

We believe that Open XML represents an exciting advance toward

14 achieving the original vision of XML, where broad interoperability allows I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

documents to be archived, restructured, aggregated, and re-used in new and dynamic ways. We believe that Open XML can help spark an explosion of innovation and investment, which will bring great benefits for customers in the years to come.

Open XML, an International Standard since December 7, 2006 Customers, particularly government customers, have told us they would prefer that Open XML become an open standard. Members of the broader community have said they would like broad rights to use, without cost, any Microsoft patents necessary to implement all or part of the format.

Responding to these interests, Microsoft and others called for the standardization of Open XML. We submitted it to Ecma International, a highly respected standardization body that has developed hundreds of international technology standards during the past 46 years. Ecma formed a technical committee that represented a wide range 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 enables implementation of the standard on multiple operating systems and in heterogeneous environments, and it provides backward compatibility with billions of existing documents.

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 Ecma to seek this additional recognition to establish choice among ISO/IEC JTC1 standards, including Open Document Format (ODF).

Microsoft congratulates Ecma and the many participants in its labor-intensive, successful effort. Open XML is now before ISO/IEC JTC1 for ratification.

ODF and Ope 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 different design goals and that they are only two of many document format standards in use today, each of which has characteristics that are attractive to different users in different scenarios.

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 more detail on this standard at 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 address different needs in the marketplace. These are just two of the many formats in 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 in the marketplace.

Open XML an d ISO Standardization

16 The ISO/IEC JTC1 process for considering Open XML (called “Fast Track”) involves a one- I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

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

Tom Robertson General Manager, Interoperability & Standards Microsoft Corporation

Jean Paoli General Manager, Interoperability & XML Architecture Microsoft Corporation

August 2007

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

18 investments from this group of government and private sector I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

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. • 19 Independent Studies

Scott F. Selby, Ph.D. Microsoft Corporation

20 I s s u e Backgrounders a n d Independent R e s e a r c h

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 21 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,

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

Scott F. Selby, Ph.D. Microsoft Corporation

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

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 F ra n ce markets, by entities private and public alike. We bring Dassault Systèmes Paris-based Dassault you a glimpse of where the document format has made a Systèmes, a world leader U n i t e d S t a t e s in collaborative product difference. American Red Cross life-cycle management, The American Red Cross is a developed a proof-of-concept to manage humanitarian organization that product life cycles across function, provides disaster relief and helps geography, and language based on Open people prepare for and respond XML and 2007 Microsoft Office. 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 ra z i l Conductor Conductor, 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. 24 I s s u e Backgrounders a n d I n d e p e n d e n t R e s e a r c h

United Kingd om The National Archives As 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.

n O R d i c /B alt i c R eg i o n TeliaSonera TeliaSonera, 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.

G erma n y J a p a n TGE Gas Engineering GmbH Indigo Corporation TGE Gas Engineering, a company that builds facilities for Indigo Corporation developed an enterprise content transporting and processing gas, built a solution based on management solution that enables organizations to Open XML formats that automatically integrates existing effectively manage document components stored across content with the correct internal forms, allowing TGE engineers an enterprise using Office Open XML. to create highly accurate documentation in seconds. I t al y Gruppo STR I n d o n e s i a Gruppo STR, an Italian IT solution Ranch Market provider, has developed an With its migration to Microsoft Office 2007, Ranch Market, Jakarta’s high-end supermarket Office Business Application Q atar chain, discovered that Open XML, the default document format of Office 2007, was key in that allows users to move Aspire Sports Academy minimizing the complexity of exchanging, sharing, and preserving documents and data. data between a familiar 2007 The Aspire Sports Microsoft Office environment Academy implemented and task-specific applications an internal Web site such as computer-aided design portal powered by A u stral i a Microsoft® Office (CAD), financial management, BT Financial Group SharePoint® Server and project planning software, The BT Financial Group, the wealth management division of Westpac 2007 — featuring Open based on Open XML. Banking Corporation, streamlined its business process with easy-to- XML file formats — that use, Open XML-based electronic forms that integrate smoothly with its maximizes collaboration existing systems, reaping savings and productivity gains. and streamlines content and document management processes.

n E W z E A L A n d Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand S o u th A fr i ca The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand leverages Sasfin Bank the automatic data update and collection capabilities of Sasfin Bank deployed a business intelligence and enterprise content management Open XML — the format of the 2007 Microsoft Office solution that leverages the back-office integration of Open XML to enhance analysis system — to increase its compliance audit accuracy and capabilities and to provide its staff a single, personalized view of bank customers. ensure greater accessibility of compliance history. 25 Open XML and ODF Adoption: Separating Fact From Fiction Principles of Neutrality and Choice Guiding Government Policies

The Power of Choice • Governments worldwide are committed to providing superior citizen services and e- government systems. This commitment includes ensuring the effective use of document formats to create, modify, and archive electronic documents to enable e-government services. Because governments and organizations use data and documents in different ways, most governments provide their citizens with choice in how they access and use government services. Indeed, most governments have embraced public policy approaches that allow government agencies to choose the document formats that best serve their needs. Not only is choice good public policy, it is also cost-effective policy because it encourages companies to vigorously compete for the government’s purchase decision, which, in turn, ensures the efficient expenditure of public funds. Consequently, this policy of choice fosters greater innovation, enhanced customer options, and lower costs. Plus, it allows governments and customers to avoid becoming beholden to one technology, one standard, or one company. For these reasons and more, Microsoft embraces choice and supports and makes possible the use of multiple document formats in its software

26 products. F a c t S h e e t s

We do not live in a world of “either/or,” but rather in a world of “AND,” where that favor their products (ODF is the preferred standard for IBM’s and Sun’s software governments and customers want and deserve choices to serve their different needs applications) as their primary vehicle of “competition.” — Open XML and ODF and other formats. FACT vs FICTION In contrast, some companies and organizations are currently asking government policy Because so much fiction and “FUD”4 have been put forward in the Open XML/ODF debate, makers to take choice away from their government agencies and citizens, as well as it is important to identify the real facts and set the record straight by separating fact from arguing that governments should lock themselves into one procurement option. These fiction. Because this debate has significant public policy and customer implications, it is companies and organizations include IBM, Sun, the ODF Alliance1, the Free Software important for governments and policy makers to understand the driving forces behind the Foundation2 (“FSF”), and others, all of which claim that rather than provide their debate, as well as the policy, industry, and market implications, and to continue to embrace government agencies and citizens choices, government policy makers should instead technology choice as the best public policy. mandate particular technology solutions to the exclusion of others. More specifically, IBM and others are urging government policy makers to lock in a single document • The FUD: Governments must pick only one document format standard to foster format standard called “OpenDocument Format” (“ODF”) and exclude the “Ecma interoperability, competition, and innovation and to meet their IT needs. Office Open XML File Formats” (“Open XML”). This approach, however, disadvantages • The Facts: Choice among multiple document format standards best achieves these government agencies and citizens who have not purchased the mandated technology important goals. and does not enable the efficient use of taxpayer monies as there is no competitive There are many examples in the IT marketplace where overlapping standards (even bidding process for IT products and services. In an attempt to justify their proposed multiple ISO/IEC standards) coexist and promote competition and innovation because approach, IBM and others use oversimplification and exaggeration to suggest that they serve distinct user requirements — notably, digital image formats (e.g., JPEG, governments are increasingly preferring or mandating ODF and excluding Open XML. PNG, CGM); digital media formats (e.g., MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.264); digital But that is far from the truth. 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 Why are these Microsoft competitors pressing for ODF preferences/mandates? Simply (e.g., x.400, SMTP, POP3, IMAP). put, they are seeking to achieve through regulatory intervention what they could not accomplish through competition in the marketplace. ISO accepted Open XML for standardization because it accepts the co-existence of multiple standards in a single domain. While the falsity of IBM’s and others’ claims about Open XML and ODF are addressed 1 http://www.odfalliance.org further below, it is worth noting that IBM, in stark contrast to Microsoft, does not even 2 http://www.fsf.org 3 See http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/product_faqs.jspa#4 (IBM Lotus Symphony); come close to providing the high level of choices and support of multiple formats in its 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); 3 http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/HP100141031033.aspx (Microsoft Office Excel 2007); Lotus Symphony office suite that Microsoft does in Microsoft’s Office 2007 . Moreover, 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). rather than compete in the marketplace to win customers, IBM, Sun, and the FSF have 4 “FUD” was first defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: “FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl chosen to pursue a government regulatory strategy seeking exclusive standards mandates products.” (See Wikipedia FUD entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt.) 27 Particularly in the domain of document formats, there has always existed a plethora of underscores the rationale for multiple document standards, stating that ODF and format standards — including HTML, TXT, DOC, PDF, WP, RTF, UOF, ODA, Compound Open XML were developed out of different design considerations and priorities and Document Format, and DSSSL — and yet the prior existence of these overlapping therefore are not interchangeable. formats was never a barrier to the introduction or evolution of newer document format standards. In fact, the ISO JTC 1 Directives themselves reference six different formats Document formats are like languages, and, just as would occur with spoken — HTML, TXT, DOC, PDF, WP, and RTF — and rank them from “highly recommended” to languages, the right to free and complete expression in the manner of one’s own “not recommended” for particular purposes, such as for use in standards, Web browsing, choosing would be significantly impaired by mandating a particular document format or complex documents. (See http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf (Sec. H4.1 “language” to the exclusion of others. and Annex HE).) Indeed, if ISO accepted the notion that there should be only one document format standard, ODF could never have become an ISO standard in the first Document formats are analogous to spoken languages. And policies that promote place! Rather, ISO accepted Open XML for standardization precisely because it believes choice among multiple document formats are the same as policies that enable and in the existence of multiple standards in a single domain. encourage individuals to communicate in multiple languages (we need only think of Switzerland, India, South Africa, Bolivia, Singapore, the United Nations, and the Governments have long recognized the benefits of technological neutrality as evidenced European Union). Both sets of policies recognize the benefits of a rich and diverse by the well-established technology neutral policies in place around the world. array of national languages or communications tools, as the case may be. By refusing to mandate the use of just one language, for instance, such policies embrace the Simply put, a policy of choice allows government agencies and citizens to decide which richness and diversity of expression and cultures. And translation, a low-cost solution, document formats best serve their interests and needs in various situations, thereby works for languages and document formats alike by enabling co-existence and the enhancing competition and innovation. Choice in standards just makes sense and accompanying benefits of a vibrant and extensive multi-lingual world. Conversely, enhances competition, especially when the different standards being considered serve what if everyone were required to speak the same language? What if one entity, different user needs and are interoperable, as is the case with ODF and Open XML. By for example, forced all of us to speak only English, and even further limited it to a contrast, government mandates for particular standards to the exclusion of others particular English dialect (e.g., American English)? We would all experience a terrible lock in certain technologies and certain vendors, depriving agencies and users of the sense of loss, an inability to express ourselves in our mother tongue, and a general choice, competition, functionality, and innovative solutions they desire and deserve. feeling that some of our freedom, individuality, and cultural identity had been stripped Governments such as Chile have long recognized the benefits of technological away. This is analogous to what would happen with mandating just one document neutrality: In fact, in 2001 a Chilean Presidential Instruction was issued that established format standard. We must ask ourselves, why we would ever allow one entity or a the authority of public entities to select on a case-by-case basis the technology that small set of companies — IBM and Sun — to dictate the document file format we must best meets their needs. See also attachment below listing many other countries that all use? What are IBM’s motivations? And what are the economic, social, and technical have embraced technology neutrality in connection with document format standards. implications of being restricted to just one document format standard?

5 5 28 A recent independent study by the Burton Group, a premier IT industry analyst firm, http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx F a c t S h e e t s

Document format standards and the benefits of choice in document formats are Open XML includes financial formulas for spreadsheets; ODF does not. analogous to policies regarding spoken languages. The ability to choose the Open XML allows data from other systems — e.g., healthcare and financial records — language we speak, and similarly the document format we use to save our creations, to be easily incorporated and updated in real-time; these functions are not supported is empowering and liberating, and a right we should not surrender. by ODF. Open XML supports technologies that help computer users with disabilities, whereas Standards mandates also risk freezing innovation and technology development. the lack of such support by ODF has been one of the main criticisms against it from A notable example of the innovation-stifling dangers of government-mandated the beginning. standards occurred in the high definition television area. Japan spent 20 years The ODF technical committee has already revised the ODF specification, and says it of effort and billions of dollars on a government-mandated, analog-based HDTV plans to revise it again, to address some, but not all, of the above gaps in functionality. standard — called “Hi-Vision” — only to wind up being quickly surpassed in the The recent independent study6 by the Burton Group concludes that because ODF and race toward HDTV by America, whose market-based approach to innovation Open XML were developed out of different design considerations and priorities and allowed a tiny American company — General Instrument — to develop a digital- therefore are not interchangeable, the recommendation of the authors is to deploy based HDTV standard that became the cornerstone of the global digital technology Open XML and use ODF “by exception rather than by default.” 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 • The FUD: Microsoft is pushing Open XML so that its proprietary standard can dominate technological outcome for HDTV. Who is to say that the ODF-Open XML debate the marketplace. will not be rendered moot tomorrow when the marketplace forcefully embraces • The Facts: Open XML is already an open standard, and Microsoft promotes choice in a document format standard not endorsed by a government (e.g., Open XML as document formats. opposed to ODF), or when a new document format technology emerges and far Open XML has already been approved as an open standard by Ecma International7, an surpasses either or both? Do policy makers really want to risk billions of dollars — as internationally respected standards organization that has developed more than 370 Japan did in the HDTV context — that this won’t happen? IT-related international standards — two-thirds of which have also been approved by ISO/IEC. Future versions of Open XML will be managed in an open environment by • The FUD: Open XML and ODF are identical in focus and functionality, so there is no Ecma and ISO JTC 1 (assuming ISO approval), not by Microsoft. need to have both. • The Facts: Open XML and ODF were designed with different functionality to serve ISO and Ecma have publicly declared that there are no IPR issues or concerns with different user needs. Open XML. (See http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm and Open XML was designed to achieve backward compatibility with billions of existing http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Ecma%20responses.pdf documents, helping to preserve customers’ investments and meet their archival needs (Sec. 2.2).) in an open environment. By contrast, ODF is a narrower document format standard that was designed to reflect the information created by one application (OpenOffice) 6 http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx 7 and thus focuses on more limited functionality suitable for simpler applications. http://www.ecma-international.org 29 Microsoft has never opposed ODF before governments, ISO, or elsewhere. It has XML. (See consistently endorsed choice and technology neutrality and advocated that governments www.openxmlcommunity.com/community.aspx and consider both Open XML and ODF. http://openxmldeveloper.org/posts.aspx.) As noted earlier, Microsoft’s support of formats Microsoft implemented Open XML in Microsoft Office 2007 and has provided free updates in its office suite far exceeds IBM’s in its respective office suite. of the new open standard for older versions of Office such as Office 2000, Office XP, and Leading companies, such as Apple, Corel, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Novell, and Sun, have Office 2003. either adopted or announced support for Open XML in their products on a broad variety Microsoft has also sponsored a free Open XML-ODF Translator that enables Office 2007 and of platforms. More specifically, here is a representative list of Open XML implementations: Office 2003 to read and write ODF files. See ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter.) This Translator means that customers, Shipping: IBM (Lotus Quickr, Websphere Portal, DB2 Content Manager v8.4, and including governments and citizens, can already use multiple document formats. The DB2 9 pureXML); Apple (MAC OS X Leopard, iWork 08, iPhone); Adobe (InDesign); Translator enables these customers not only to achieve interoperability between Open XML Microsoft (Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, Office 2008 Mac OS X); and ODF, but also to use a broader range of applications. Novell (OpenOffice);Google (Search / Preview); Mindjet (MindManager); Intergen; Microsoft supports a wide range of document formats in Office 2007 — e.g., Microsoft Open XML/ODF Translator (Open Source project on SourceForge.net); Dataviz Office Word 2007 supports Open XML, PDF, XPS, RTF, DOC, HTM, HTML, MHT, MHTML, (DocumentsToGo on Palm OS, MacLinkPlus on Mac OS X Leopard); NeoOffice; Altova TXT, XML, WPS, and ODF (the last via translator), among others. (XMLSpy); MarkLogic (XML Content Server); Datawatch (Monarch Pro); QuickOffice The independent study8 by the Burton Group recognizes the legitimacy of Ecma (QuickOffice Premier 5.0 on Symbian); andA ltsoft (XML2PDF Server 2007). standardization of Open XML and gives high marks to the level of scrutiny and transparency Under Development: Corel (WordPerfect); AbiWord; Gnome (GNumeric); Xandros; that have been applied to the process of standardization. The report urges customers to Linspire; Turbolinux; and others. “discount the political FUD” that has been propagated, according to the authors, to curtail Many Platforms: Linux; Macintosh; Windows; and handheld devices (Palm OS, — and make inroads into — Microsoft’s successful Office suite. Symbian, iPhone, and Windows Mobile).

• The FUD: Open XML adoption is slow, as governments and users wait to see if ISO approves IBM’s support of Open XML in at least four of its products (Lotus Quickr9, Websphere Open XML. Portal10, DB2 Content Manager v8.411, and DB2 9 pureXML12) is especially noteworthy (as • The Facts: Global adoption, support, and momentum for Open XML are growing exponentially. this article13 indicates), given IBM’s vigorous opposition to Open XML and the FUD it has Thousands of developers, organizations, governments, and professionals spanning 67 been spreading — including that Open XML lacks independent implementations! IBM’s countries and six continents have already expressed public support for Open XML and for decision to support Open XML makes perfect sense, given the feedback it has received its approval by ISO/IEC. More than 2,000 members have joined OpenXMLCommunity.org, from its users. See, e.g., and hundreds of independent software vendors (“ISVs”) are developing solutions using Open http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/supportThread.jspa?messageID=7343

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.html 10 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wpdoc/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.wp.zos.doc/wpf/dcs_info.html 11 http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21288972 12 http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0705gruber/ 13 30 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9058038&source=rss_news50 F a c t S h e e t s

(“Due to the popularity of [Microsoft] Office, it would be absurd to not feature full next year [i.e., planned pilots and deployments].” (at page 13) compatibility, with the ability to both save and open Office files, such as the newer More than 20 million compatibility packs that allow users of earlier versions of Microsoft .docx format … The ability to open and modify DOCX and the other Microsoft Office to work with Open XML have been downloaded. The ODF-Open XML Translator Office Open XML document formats will be critical for corporate adoption of Lotus has more than 400,000 downloads and has become one of the 25 most active projects on Symphony. I cannot put it on a VP’s computer if she will not be able to open the SourceForge.net, which hosts more than 100,000 open source projects. DOCX MS Word document that the bank or company lawyer sends her.”) • The FUD: Governments around the world are embracing “pro-ODF” and “anti-Open XML” Industry adopters of Open XML include many open source developers: Novell, policies. (See, e.g., http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Adoptions20Dec2007.pdf.) Linspire, Xandros, Gnumeric, NeoOffice, Turbolinux, and others have incorporated • The Facts: Governments, customers, and leading institutions (such as Harvard and the UN) Open XML into their OSS products. are overwhelmingly supporting neutrality and choice in document format standards. Below is a survey of governments and leading institutions that have promoted neutrality The recent independent study14 by the Burton Group calls out Open XML as and choice in document format standards. This survey highlights the falsity of the “considerably more expressive” and “more ecosystem and application oriented” claims by IBM, Sun, the ODF Alliance, the FSF, and others that ODF is increasingly being than ODF, citing its support for custom schema and “full-fidelity round-trip work embraced and mandated by governments around the world to the exclusion of Open flow” of documents created in Microsoft Office applications. (at page 5) The report XML. In fact, countries are increasingly embracing choice and neutrality and opposing predicts, on the basis of both functionality supported and a worldwide ecosystem of mandates in their technical solutions, so that the varying and unique needs of users can partners, that Open XML will be more successful and “more pervasive” than ODF. (at be met. 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” PRINCIPLES OF NEUTRALITY AND CHOICE CONTINUE TO and its use will be limited to scenarios where there are no requirements around GUIDE GOVERNMENT POLICIES RELATED TO DOCUMENT complex document modelings. (at page 23) The report projects that Open XML FORMATS will be widespread and swiftly fuelled by the global ecosystem currently supporting Policy makers are focused on ensuring the effective use of technology to create, use, and Microsoft Office applications, and that ODF evolution will be “slow and complex,” archive government documents. Because governments need different technologies to largely on account of the fact that OpenOffice.org, the primary implementation of accomplish various tasks (and because they are already faced with the challenges associated ODF, is arguably still, in some respects, controlled by Sun Microsystems. (at page 19) with the deployment of legacy systems from multiple vendors), they are increasingly A recent study15 by IDC of 200 U.S. and EU small and large, public and private recognizing that it is important to foster innovation and choice through neutral and organizations affirmed the significant adoption and momentum of the Open XML competitive procurement policies that do not exclude vendors from the process. There are standard worldwide: “Open XML is clearly preferred in both public and private many choices among document format standards, and governments understand that limiting 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.html sectors in the United States and in Europe” (at page 11); “Open XML has created the choice exclusively to only one standard would impede the ability of governments to 10 http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wpdoc/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.wp.zos.doc/wpf/dcs_info.html 11 http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21288972 significantly more traction in the market than other XML-based standards such as 12 http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/techarticle/dm-0705gruber/ 14 http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx 13 15 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9058038&source=rss_news50 ODF….” (at page 10); “Open XML is the standard showing the most progress over the http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/documents/IDC%20Document%20Adoptions%20White%20Paper.pdf 31 effectively serve their citizens, to pick the best technology for a specific need, to manage implementing Poland’s IT Act21, establishes technological neutrality as a central requirement. archived documents, and to avoid technology and/or vendor lock-in. The following The NCP established this key priority to ensure equal treatment of different IT solutions in governments and leading institutions have promoted neutrality and choice in document public administration systems, and to avoid preferences and discrimination among any of them. format standards. • Japan: Urges consideration of multiple standards in procurement decisions Japan issued new procurement Guidelines for IT in July 2007, establishing compliance • Switzerland: Standards group includes Open XML and ODF in policy with “open international standards” as one criterion among others to be considered in Switzerland has adopted updated technical guidelines16 for the implementation of e- awarding government contracts. In a public statement, the government agency in charge government applications and recommends using both ODF and Open XML. The two of drafting the new rules stated that the Guidelines did not specify one standard over standards were approved by Switzerland’s eCH expert committee following a public another and that there was no intent in formulating the Guidelines to rule out procurement hearing on June 22, 2007. of Microsoft products. Separately, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (“METI”) • Denmark: Broad-ranging national agreement embraces both Open XML and ODF circulated a draft “framework for interoperability” that lists ODF as an example of an “open In September 2007, the Danish Government, Local Government Denmark, and Danish international standard,” but the document was not adopted as government policy. Moreover, Regions concluded an agreement17 on the use of mandatory open standards for software the framework specifically urged the consideration of “multiple standards” in reaching in the public sector. Under the agreement, all public authorities, starting on January 1, procurement decisions. 2008, are to use seven sets of open standards for new IT solutions, including Open XML • Italy: Repeatedly rejects preferences in open document formats and ODF for document formats. Various regional governments in Italy have been looking at open document formats generally. • Malaysia: Refuses to mandate a document format standard None of those bills has gained much support, however. At a central level, there has also According to reports18, Datuk Dr. Mohamad Ariffin Aton, Chief Executive of the been some discussion of the adoption of ODF, but no formal action has been taken. Several Malaysian standards body, Sirim, said there is no chance of ODF or Open XML being organizations in Italy have considered ODF preferences, but decided against them. The made a mandatory standard in Malaysia, for two reasons. First, a standard can only be National Trade Association recently made a public statement22 on format neutrality. mandatory when public health or safety is at stake, which is clearly not the case here, he • Korea: Makes ODF optional said. Second, a mandatory standard would constitute an illicit non-tariff barrier against While Korea approved ODF as a national standard, even the ODF Alliance has acknowledged23 software products using other document formats. Ariffin said this would violate Malaysia’s that Korea has refrained from making its use by government agencies compulsory. commitments to free trade under the World Trade Organization. He added, “Ultimately, • The Netherlands: Multiple document formats can coexist it is up to the general public and users in both the public and private sectors to decide In November 2007, the Netherlands announced24 an inclusive approach to open standards, which format they want to use.” under which ODF will be used alongside “other document formats already in use.” Specifically, • Sweden: Official inquiry considers but rejects ODF preference 16 http://www.ech.ch/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=92&Itemid=181&lang=de An officially sponsored inquiry into standardization in the IT field resulted in thisreport 19 17 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=technology 19 http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/45/58/fd029160.pdf which considered but rejected an ODF preference. 20 http://www.mswia.gov.pl/portal/pl/272/ 21 http://www.mswia.gov.pl/portal/pl/271/3886/ • Poland: Requires neutrality and prohibits preferences in technical procurement decisions 22 http://punto-informatico.it/p.aspx?id=1986456&r=PI 23 http://www.odfalliance.org/press/Release20071120.pdf 20 32 The National Computerization Program (“NCP”) for 2007-2010, which is a regulation 24 http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7210/469 F a c t S h e e t s

the central government must be able to read, write, and exchange documents in the • France: ODF Alliance mischaracterizes government as favoring ODF ODF format by April 2008. However, ODF use is not exclusive, and the government will Although the ODF Alliance has claimed27 that France has established a preference for create a series of lists of recognized standards using a definition that should sweep in ODF, this is not true and is just the latest example of this group and other ODF enthusiasts competing formats, including Open XML, culminating in the complete list by mid-2008. playing fast and loose with the facts. The reality is that, while there is indeed a debate about • Russia: Supports “widely used standards” mandating ODF inside the French e-government interoperability framework task force, local Russia has not implemented a national document format, but instead has taken steps to and state governments and their national professional organizations are deeply hostile to mandate use of software that supports “widely used standards.” Russia’s broad language such a policy given its likely negative impact on their total cost of ownership for software provides the freedom to allow competing standards to thrive. In this spirit, Russia voted purchases. This is why the last meeting of the e-government interoperability framework Yes for ISO/IEC DIS 29600 (Ecma Office Open XML) and has also agreed to include ODF committee (10/12/07) ended with a lack of consensus. The next meeting is not expected to as part of an updated National Standardization Program. take place until the spring of 2008. • Norway: Chooses an open-minded preference for open standards The Norwegian government has decided25 to promote the use of open standards in • Croatia: Is open to multiple standards the public sector through a gradual, phased-in implementation and expansion of an As part of its eCroatia program, Croatia announced28 that it will adopt ODF and PDF as a “Open Standards List.” While Open XML is not yet included in Norway’s list of approved basis for electronic document exchange by public administrations. While Open XML is standards, the government did not mandate the exclusive use of ODF and remains open not yet included in Croatia’s list of approved standards, the government did not mandate to evaluating and including other standards. Microsoft is working with the Norwegian the exclusive use of ODF and remains open to evaluating and including other standards. government and expects Open XML to join the list of permissible standards by January Microsoft is working with the Croatian government and expects Open XML to join the list 1, 2009 (the date when the mandate for use of open standards takes effect). of permissible standards over the next several months. Croatia’s approach here is consistent • Belgium: Enacts a transition to interoperability with its established policy29 of technology neutrality and choice in the purchase of open In Belgium, the government approved26 use of ODF in July 2006. Since then, the source and proprietary software. government has been using plug-ins to enable Microsoft Office to read and save files • Germany: Allows technology-neutral advancement of standards in ODF — an even-handed approach that acknowledges that different formats can In August 2007, Germany voted30 to approve with comments ISO’s adoption of Open XML. coexist and interoperate to meet different needs. Contrary to the suggestions of the Gerd Schürman, Director of the Fraunhofer FOKUS eGovernment Laboratory, favored31 ODF Alliance and others, the Belgian government’s decision on ODF is not preferential Germany’s decision: “The standardization process of Open XML as an ISO standard will start or exclusive, and Open XML, once standardized by ISO, will be considered as a new open now and result in the technological advancement of both standards, Open XML and ODF standard for inclusion in Belgium’s list. 1.0.”

25 http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=501077 26 http://presscenter.org/archive/other/2648eda677208241081d4d8e02c22975/?lang=en 27 http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1351236114 28 http://www.e-hrvatska.hr/sdu/hr/e-hrv/vijest.html?h=/hr/e-hrv/contentParagraph/011111111111113&c=/hr/ProgramEHrvatska/Provedba 29 http://www.e-croatia.hr/repozitorij/dokumenti/downloads/Open_Source_Software_Policy.pdf 30 http://www.din.de/cmd?cmsrubid=56731&menurubricid=56731&level=tpl-artikel&menuid=49589&bcrumblevel=1&contextid=din&cmstextid=65004&cmsareaid=49589&languageid=en 31 http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/documents/translation_files/fraunhofer.htm 33 U.S. STATES CONSISTENTLY REJECT MANDATES FOR PARTICULAR In November 2007, the Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Operations36 DOCUMENT FORMATS TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS acknowledged that the “most important issue for agencies choosing technology is • Massachusetts: Supports open document format standards without vendor or not whether that system is proprietary or open source but whether that system is commercial bias interoperable.” The Florida House Committee on Audit & Performance37 agreed and In August 2007, Massachusetts added Open XML to its Enterprise Technical Reference asserted that it is “premature” to adopt a document format standard “before an industry- Model’s32 (“ETRM”) list of approved standards, defeating calls for an ODF mandate. In a joint wide national standard has been established.” statement33, Massachusetts Undersecretary of Administration and Finance, Henry Dormitzer, • Minnesota: No standard mandates without careful study and the Commonwealth’s Acting Chief Information Officer, Bethann Pepoli, explained that The need for careful study trumped the urge for premature mandates when the Minnesota concerns about competing document standards were “outweighed substantially by the legislature opted38 to engage in careful study of document format standards instead of benefits of moving toward open, XML-based” standards. The ETRM articulates a vision of requiring state agencies to use ODF. Don Betzold, an original sponsor of the bill, questioned39 a service-oriented architecture where information can be shared, reused and repurposed whether he and other Minnesota legislators had enough expertise at all to choose the based on XML technologies...The availability of open, standardized XML document formats technical standard: “I wouldn’t know an open document format if it bit me on the butt,” without vendor bias will move us further along in realizing this vision.” Betzold said. “We’re public policy experts. [Picking technical standards] is not our job.” • Texas: ODF implementation costs too high and credibility too low • Oregon: ODF is too expensive to implement High implementation costs34 helped to scuttle legislation that would have required ODF The high costs associated with conversion to ODF contributed to the failure of legislation40 for electronic documents in Texas. A Financial Impact Report put the five-year cost of introduced in the Oregon House after Oregon’s secretary of state questioned41 the cost of documents and applications connected to ODF in the hundreds of millions of dollars. converting to applications that support open formats. While press reports35 indicated that ODF proponents privately relayed “gleaming” reports • Others States: Just saying no to document format mandates about ODF implementation in Massachusetts to Texas legislators, the same proponents Efforts to require use of certain open document formats failed to gain support in refused to clarify publicly under oath that only a handful of computers in Massachusetts California42 and Connecticut43 as well. 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 LEADING INSTITUTIONS ALSO ENDORSE TECHNOLOGY CHOICE AND House of Representatives, to start to “question the whole bill.” NEUTRALITY • Florida: Interoperability, not premature snap judgments, should be key • Harvard Law’s Berkman Center: Endorses technology and brand neutrality in standard selection

32 http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/etrmv4dot0/etrmv4dot0information.rtf 33 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.pdf 38 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 34 http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5299&which_year=2007&SUBMIT1.x=12&SUBMIT1.y=9 F a c t S h e e t s

A recent report44 on interoperability and innovation by the prestigious Berkman Center at Harvard Law School advocated choice, neutrality, and the avoidance of government “Whatever the approach [to standards implementation], pragmatism is needed to ensure mandates in the standards and technology areas. Here are a few key findings of the report: that open standards are applied in ways that are market-led and directly serve the larger goals of an open ICT ecosystem.” (at page 22) “Limiting procurement to only officially The private sector generally should lead interoperability efforts. The public sector adopted open standards can limit the ability to exploit new technologies.” (at page 24) should stand by either to lend a supportive hand or to determine if its involvement (italics added) The report further concluded that “[t]echnology and brand neutrality in is warranted. “This is true largely because technological development is likely to procurement specifications ... reduces the possibility of vendor or technology lock-in by outpace the speed with which government actors can react.” (at page 8) “Regarding emphasizing choices and procurement decisions based upon what works best. It will also the criteria ‘efficiency’ and ‘flexibility,’ by contrast, the government-mandated reduce costs, increase competition and help smaller vendors to compete.” (at page 25) approach is likely to perform poorly: Administrating, monitoring, and eventually enforcing a standard tends to cause considerable costs. Further, a traditional • United Nations Report on e-Government: Embraces choice in standards government-mandated approach usually leaves very little flexibility. Not only are In this 2007 report46 (sponsored by IBM and Oracle) focused on Asian countries pursuing e- governments generally ill-equipped to choose the most suitable standard, but also tend government interoperability frameworks, the core principles of standards choice and technology to operate under conditions that make it difficult to respond in due time to market neutrality — as well as the dangers of narrow government mandates — were clearly articulated: developments or changes in technology.” (at page 25) (italics added) “[T]he rigid insistence of using any particular standard may constrain a government from using Interoperability does not mean the same thing in every context. There is no one- old standards that respond to all previous needs as well as to new ones. Mandating a particular size-fits-all way (such as imposing open standards) to achieve interoperability in technology will not only prevent government from using the latest and the best but also consign the ICT context. Interoperability can be achieved by multiple means, including the it to using older and perhaps outmoded standards.” (at page 10) licensing of intellectual property, product design, collaboration with partners, and • International Chamber of Commerce: Opposes software procurement preferences development and implementation of standards. and mandates The best path to interoperability depends greatly upon context and which The ICC’s leading report47 concludes that ‘‘ICC opposes government procurement subsidiary goals matter most, such as prompting further innovation, providing preferences and mandates that favor one form of software development or licensing over consumer choice or ease of use, and the spurring of competition in the field (such others. Governments, like all potential and existing customers, should choose software on as through multiple document formats). a technology-neutral and vendor-neutral basis, examining the merits of the technology Trying to impose universal answers can produce unintended consequences such as based upon the performance factors stated above. As a general rule, governments should curtailing innovation, limiting consumer choice, and reducing competition. not discriminate against or ban the procurement of software based on its licensing or development model. Such preferential policies prevent public authorities from effectively This Berkman report is a follow-on to an earlier report45 released in 2005 by the weighing all relevant factors in their procurement decisions.’’ (at page 5) • Berkman Center, which also acknowledged the need for governments to rely on the 44 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interop/ marketplace and to avoid mandating particular standards or technologies to the 45 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy 46 http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif/GIF-Guide.pdf 47 exclusion of others in the name of enhancing interoperability: http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/ICC/policy/e-business/Statements/373-466_open_source_software.pdf 35 36 F a c t S h e e t s

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6,000-page length. Thousands of developers, organizations, governments, and • ECMA-376 — Office Open XML File Formats (Open XML) is an open standard that professionals spanning 67 countries and six continents have already expressed was developed from the collaborative work of a dozen global organizations and that public support for Open XML and for its further approval by ISO/IEC. allows users to create documents that can be read, revised, managed, saved, stored, • Novell, Corel, Apple, Microsoft, Sun, and others have already adopted (or and distributed across a broad array of interoperable applications and platforms. announced adoption of) both formats for their products on a variety of platforms • Open XML addresses very different needs than the OpenDocument Format (ODF) — including Linux, Windows, Mac OS, Palm OS, Java, and .NET — thereby (which was developed by IBM and Sun, standardized by OASIS, and approved as demonstrating that both formats can peacefully coexist. an international standard by ISO/IEC in November 2006) and therefore provides • Microsoft and others have taken significant steps to achieve interoperability users with greater choice. In particular, Open XML’s primary design goal was to be between Open XML and ODF. Notably, the Microsoft-funded Open XML-ODF backward compatible with the content and functionality stored in the billions of Translator can be downloaded for free and plugged into Microsoft Office and documents that have been created in the past and to carry them forward into an integrated into other applications to provide users with the choice of opening and open environment. By contrast, ODF is much more narrowly focused on reflecting saving documents in ODF or in Open XML. the information created by a single application (OpenOffice) and thus has more • There are no intellectual property rights (IPR) issues or concerns with Open limited functionality suitable for simpler applications. XML. Through its Open Specification Promise (OSP) and Covenant Not to Sue • Developers and others have welcomed the much greater functionality and flexibility (CNS), Microsoft has made a royalty-free, irrevocable promise not to assert any of the Open XML specification over ODF and other document formats, as well of its essential patent rights covering the Open XML specification against any

as its comprehensive documentation, which together account for its impressive implementer of all or part of the specification. This IPR approach goes much 37 further in granting rights to Microsoft IPR than what is required by Ecma and ISO/IEC. approval through the ISO/IEC “Fast-Track” process. (JTC 1 is a “Joint Technical Indeed, both Ecma and ISO/IEC have publicly declared that there are no IPR issues Committee” formed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), with Open XML. an international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various • When multiple overlapping standards coexist and interoperate, as is the case with national standards bodies, and the International Electrotechnical Commission Open XML and ODF, governments, businesses, and consumers alike benefit from the (IEC).) Processes like “Fast Track” exist so that ISO/IEC can allocate the majority of diverse functionality, increased innovation, and enhanced choice they provide. the standardization work to separate standards organizations like Ecma. This way • There are many other examples in the IT marketplace where overlapping standards the work to generate and collaborate on the standard can be fully covered before (even multiple ISO/IEC standards) coexist and, in fact, are highly pro-consumer, it is submitted to ISO/IEC for a final review. This allows ISO/IEC to spend more time because they serve distinct user requirements. ISO/IEC should accordingly approve focusing on whether or not there are contradictions or serious technical issues that Open XML. should prevent it from being approved by ISO/IEC. This is very similar to a process • Efforts by IBM to block ISO/IEC approval of Open XML and to persuade state and that OASIS was able to use when it sent ODF through ISO/IEC. country governments to adopt mandates or preferences for ODF are nothing • Approval by ISO/IEC. On January 5, 2007, JTC 1 circulated Open XML (named more than a self-serving attempt to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior “ISO/IEC DIS 29500” in the JTC 1 process) to national bodies for a 30-day review commercial motives — and without regard for the negative impact on consumers to determine if there were any “perceived contradictions” between Open XML and and innovation. These efforts should be resisted. 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 A Breakthrough for XML and Open Standards. Open XML is an open standard file technical review and preliminary balloting process that concluded on September format for word processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets that can be 2, 2007. Although 51 ISO members, representing 74% of all qualified votes, stated freely implemented by multiple software applications on multiple platforms. The work their support for ratification of Open XML as an ISO/IEC standard, this preliminary to document and publish this open standard was carried out by Ecma International — a vote fell just short of certain thresholds required for approval by ISO. This process highly respected standards organization based in Geneva that has developed hundreds now moves into the final phase during which: (1) comments accompanying the votes of widely implemented international open standards during the past 46 years. The will be responded to by Ecma and others and then discussed at a “ballot resolution Ecma Technical Committee 45, which spearheaded this effort, was composed of a broad meeting” (BRM) in Geneva in February 2008, and (2) a final member vote on ISO/IEC cross section of major industry representatives, including Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, the ratification will take place in March 2008. British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the U.S. • Status of Open XML in the Marketplace. There is significant adoption of and Library of Congress. support for Open XML in the marketplace. Thousands of developers, businesses, governments, and technical professionals spanning 67 countries and six continents Current Status of Open XML have expressed their public support for Open XML and its standardization by ISO/ • Approval by Ecma. At the General Assembly meeting on December 7, 2006, Ecma IEC. (See www.openxmlcommunity.com/community.aspx and ratified the Office Open XML File Formats as an open standard (ECMA-376). The http://openxmldeveloper.org/posts.aspx) Leading companies, such as Apple, Corel,

38 General Assembly also submitted the standard to JTC 1 of ISO/IEC for additional Microsoft, Novell, and Sun, have either adopted or announced support for Open F a c t S h e e t s

XML in their products. More than 10 million compatibility packs that allow users of improved damaged file recovery through modular data storage and safer documents earlier versions of Microsoft Office to work with Open XML have been downloaded through greater control of embedded code and unwanted macros. across the world. Finally, the 51 ISO members voting in support of Open XML at • Compactness. Open XML allows documents to be up to 50 percent smaller than the preliminary stage compare favorably to the 32 members supporting ODF 1.0 at their binary counterparts. The syntax is intentionally sparse to enable much faster the end of its process and the 15 ISO members supporting PDF/A at the end of its performance when saving and opening files than is the case with older formats. process. • Extensive Documentation / Easy for Developers to Adopt. While Open XML is much more feature-rich than other existing document formats, it also contains Key Benefits of Open XML comprehensive documentation of its broad array of functions/features (both • Enhanced Interoperability. of which account for its impressive 6,000-page length), so that an experienced Because the Open XML file formats are the new default formats in the 2007 developer can begin to write simple Open XML applications within a few hours of Microsoft Office applications, Microsoft’s customers will be able to achieve beginning to read the open standard. more seamless interoperability and data flow across their organization’s diverse • Integration with Business Data. Open XML file formats are uniquely capable IT systems and applications (from Microsoft and others), as well as with their of integrating other types of systems and data with Open XML documents, while partners and customers worldwide. maintaining a clean, simple separation of presentation (Open XML markup) and The adoption of Open XML as an open standard by Ecma and the submission to data (custom schemas). This means that organizations can use Open XML to report ISO/IEC JTC 1 are intended to further enable the use of this robust technology information from other applications and systems without having to translate it first, independent of Microsoft software. The standard is fully open and vendor which is a key innovation for developers seeking to incorporate real-time business neutral. Notably, future updates and maintenance of the standard will be information into their documents, or those who seek to “tag” documents with their managed by Ecma and JTC 1, not by Microsoft. As a result, users will be able to own categorization system to improve their understanding of its contents. create documents whose data/contents can be read, revised, managed, saved, • Internationalization. Open XML supports internationalization features required by stored, and distributed across a broad array of interoperable applications and such diverse languages as Arabic, Chinese (three variants), Hebrew, Hindi, Japanese, platforms. Korean, Russian, and Turkish, plus Unicode. In addition, Open XML has a rich set of Open XML has been designed to achieve backward compatibility with the internationalization features that have been refined over the course of many years, content and functionality of billions of existing documents created by more than such as text orientation, text flow, number representation, date representation, 450 million customers using previous versions of Microsoft Office. These existing formulas, and language identifiers. Office users can update their existing products to use Open XML free of charge • Extensibility and Room for Innovation. Open XML is designed to encourage through compatibility tools. This approach furthers the goal supported by developers to create new applications that were not contemplated when the governments around the world of archiving documents, which is a key reason the Microsoft Office binary formats were defined, or even when the Open XML file standard is supported by the U.S. Library of Congress and the British Library. formats were initially defined. Through features built into the specification, independent software vendors (ISVs) can extend their solutions in several promising

• Enhanced Document Security and Integrity. Open XML offers significantly areas, including: document integration with line-of-business systems; automated 39 document assembly and content management; content auditing, tracking, and because, “IPR decisions have previously been delegated by all the ISO and IEC regulatory compliance; file conversion tools and utilities; vertical industry Open members (NBs) to the CEOs of IEC and ISO, and they in turn have examined them XML formats support; public records; and digital archival management. and found no outstanding problems.” http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm. • Royalty-Free Use and No IPR Concerns. Microsoft has made any essential patent Ecma issued a similar statement. See claims it may have that cover Open XML available on an irrevocable, royalty-free http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Ecma%20responses.pdf basis to all implementers: (Sec. 2.2). Microsoft made information available to Ecma regarding any essential patent Likewise, Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise has received wide praise from claims Microsoft may have in connection with Open XML, and this declaration leading members of the open source community. See, e.g., was provided to JTC 1 together with the Fast-Track document. http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/openxmlmyths.aspx#myth4 (quoting Red Hat). Microsoft also submitted to ISO a “Patent Declaration Form” related to licensing In short, claims that Open XML raises IPR concerns are inaccurate and should be of any Microsoft essential patent claims that may be necessary to implement ignored. Open XML. • Accessibility. Open XML includes robust support for assistive technologies that help Pursuant to these patent declarations submitted to Ecma and ISO/IEC, computer users with disabilities. Microsoft has provided assurances that any of its essential patent claims covering the Open XML specification will be freely available for full or partial Open XML Addresses Different Needs implementations of the specification under three different approaches from Than ODF and Thus Provides Greater which an implementer may choose. These options include Microsoft’s Open C h o i c e Specification Promise, Microsoft’s Covenant Not to Sue, and a royalty-free • Open XML and ODF were created to meet very different user requirements. Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) license. (See As noted, in response to the demands of enterprises and governments, Open http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx; XML was designed to be backward compatible with the content and functionality http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102134631033.aspx) of billions of existing documents, including countless government documents, Each of these three IPR options goes far beyond the minimum licensing thereby helping to protect customers’ investments and enhancing archiving requirements of both Ecma and ISO/IEC. For example, neither Ecma nor ISO/IEC capabilities. This backward compatibility goal is very demanding, and it dictated requires royalty-free patent grants, and the Microsoft Open Specification much of the format design (and the size) of the robust specification. Promise is a simple and clear way to ensure that the broadest audience Conversely, ODF (originally named “Open Office XML Format”) is a narrower file of developers and customers, working with either open source software or format that was not designed to achieve backward compatibility with the billions proprietary software, can implement Open XML for free, easily, now, and of existing documents in the marketplace; rather, it was developed by IBM and forever, without needing to sign anything or even reference Microsoft. Sun solely to reflect the information created by one application (OpenOffice) and Both Ecma and ISO/IEC have publicly declared that there are no IPR concerns therefore focuses on more limited functionality suitable for simpler applications. with Open XML. For example, in a recent document explaining the upcoming For example, Open XML provides a full specification of spreadsheet formulas and

40 BRM process, ISO/IEC noted that IPR issues will not be discussed at the BRM, many other features that are lacking in the ODF specification. F a c t S h e e t s

• Open XML and ODF can coexist even within the same software application, so that few. Each of these formats addresses similar but overlapping requirements for documents can be formatted and stored using either Open XML or ODF. Indeed, drawings, still images, scanned images, animations, graphic designs, etc. Novell’s OpenOffice already supports both ODF and Open XML, Corel recently Video. Many overlapping standards exist to encode and compress digital video, released a beta version of WordPerfect that supports both formats, and the open- such as: MPEG-1 (an ISO/IEC standard) — used for video CDs; MPEG-2 (an ISO/IEC source Gnumeric project is implementing both formats. Microsoft implemented standard) — used for DVDs and Super-VCDs, as well as for digital television signals Open XML in the 2007 Microsoft Office system, provided free updates of the new distributed by broadcasters, cable operators, and direct broadcast satellites; open standard for older versions of Office such as Office 2000, Office XP, and MPEG-4 (an ISO/IEC standard) — good for online distribution of large videos; Office 2003, and has sponsored an ODF translator (see below) that enables all those and H.264 (jointly developed by ISO/IEC and ITU-T) — created to provide higher versions of Office to read and write ODF files. quality video at substantially lower bit rates than previous standards. There are • The fact that ODF has been approved by ISO/IEC JTC 1 as an international likewise a large number of overlapping digital interface standards used to transfer standard does not preclude the adoption by ISO/IEC JTC 1 of the robust, open, and digital video at high speed, including FireWire (an IEEE standard), HDMI, SDI (an interoperable Open XML standard. Such dual adoption is consistent with ISO/IEC ITU-R and SMPTE standard), DVI, UDI, DisplayPort (a VESA standard), and USB. rules, philosophy, and history. As JTC 1 found during the 30-day “contradiction” review period, there is no contradiction between Open XML and ODF or any other • Existing Document Formats existing standard. We have today (and will continue to need) multiple overlapping document • Rather, as illustrated further below, when multiple standards in the same space can format standards to meet the needs of various users, and several of them are coexist and interoperate, as is the case with Open XML and ODF, governments, existing ISO/IEC standards, including HTML, ODF, and PDF/A. Indeed, the JTC businesses, and consumers alike benefit from the diverse functionality, increased 1 Directives themselves include a list of the different types of standard formats innovation, and enhanced choice they provide. 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 Other Marketplace Examples of Overlapping Standards That Peacefully Coexist references six different formats — HTML, TXT, DOC, PDF, WP, and RTF — and and Enhance Consumer Choice and Innovation. It is quite common to have ranks them from “highly recommended” to “not recommended” for different standards (including multiple ISO/IEC standards) whose scopes overlap. The coexistence purposes, such as for use in standards, Web browsing, or complex documents. of and support for such standards is warranted and fosters greater innovation and Several of the formats are ranked as “highly recommended” or “possible” for consumer choice when the standards address distinct user requirements, as is the case the same document use, underscoring the value of multiple document formats with Open XML and ODF and the following examples: even when they address the same need. Likewise, Corel recently announced that its new WordPerfect Office product will support both Open XML and ODF, in • Digital Media Formats addition to more than 60 other document formats. Image Data. There are multiple standards for storing digital image data, e.g., CGM (an ISO/IEC standard), ASCII drawing interchange, DPX (an ANSI/SMPTE standard), • Digital TV Formats

GIF, JPEG (an ISO/IEC standard), and PNG (an ISO/IEC standard), to name just a In 1996, when the FCC adopted the ATSC digital TV standard, it declined to 41 mandate a specific supported video format based on the conclusion that it IEC JTC 1, IBM has led a global campaign urging National Bodies to demand that ISO/IEC would “result in greater choice and diversity of equipment, allow computer JTC 1 not even consider Open XML, because ODF had made it through ISO/IEC JTC 1 first. equipment and software firms more opportunity to compete by promoting At the same time, IBM has spearheaded legislative efforts in various states and countries interoperability, and result in greater consumer benefits by allowing an increase to have governments mandate ODF to the exclusion of Open XML. This coordinated in the availability of new products and services.” Further, the FCC noted campaign by IBM is a blatant attempt to use the standards and legislative processes to its preference for “allowing consumers to choose which formats are most limit choice in the marketplace for completely self-serving commercial motives — and important to them,” which would hasten the adoption of digital broadcasting. without regard for the negative impact on consumers and innovation. 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 • IBM hopes to block ISO/IEC ratification of Open XML to reinforce its position that ODF to “foster competition among those aspects of the technology where we are should be forced on public and private sector IT users. Why is IBM pressing for this? It least able to predict the outcome, choosing instead to rely upon the market is not a coincidence that IBM’s Lotus Notes product, which IBM is actively promoting and consumer demand.” It also concluded that “allow[ing] video formats to in the marketplace, supports ODF but fails to support Open XML. From IBM’s be tested and decided by the market [would] avoid[] the risk of a mistaken perspective, what is the easiest way for it to compete with another product that has a government intervention in the market.” richer set of features? Get governments to mandate a document format standard that does not support that richer set of features. That way, if the other product (Microsoft • Wireless Standards Office in this case) is forced to use the format that was designed for IBM’s product i.e( ., Of the IEEE-developed 802.11 family of wireless standards, the Wi-Fi and ODF), IBM will have brought its competitor down to its lower level of functionality — Bluetooth protocols were once commonly believed to be in direct competition in effect, achieving through regulatory handicapping what IBM could not accomplish with, and mutually exclusive of, one another. In time, however, Wi-Fi and in the marketplace. Bluetooth were properly understood as largely targeting different market • The IBM-driven effort to impose ODF on users through public procurement mandates segments — the former, with greater range, best served home and office is thus an anti-consumer attempt to restrict choice. Since XML-based file formats can networking needs; the latter, with much more limited range, became the be implemented side by side in productivity software (as shown above) and can easily better choice for hand-held devices and other small consumer electronics. Still interoperate through translators (as shown below), this exclusivity makes no sense other overlapping wireless standards are those adopted by the Infrared Data — except to those who lack confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace Association (IrDA), whose standards are for the short range exchange of data on the technical merits of their software products. over infrared light, for uses such as personal area networks (PANs). • Likewise, IBM’s criticism of the Open XML specification as “too large” is rooted in its concern about the superior functionality and more comprehensive documentation of IBM’s Opposition to Open XML is a Self-Serving Attempt to Limit Competition, this standard as compared to ODF. Consumer Choice, and Innovation. IBM was the only one of 21 Ecma committee • While of course there is nothing wrong with IBM or any other company promoting members to vote no to adopt the Office Open XML File Formats as an Ecma open its business model or seeking a profit, and while ODF should be allowed to compete

42 standard. Moreover, during the various periods for consideration of Open XML in ISO/ (Microsoft has never opposed ODF as an alternative document format to Open XML), F a c t S h e e t s

the important point is that this should be accomplished on a level regulatory playing The second phase of the Translator project, launched in December 2007, field through market-based competition. improved upon the Translator for text documents and introduced the • If one were to accept IBM’s view that once one standard in the document format conversion of spreadsheet and presentation documents between the Open area is ratified by ISO/IEC (regardless of readiness, performance, quality, or purpose) XML and ODF spreadsheet and presentation formats. The Translator is available then all others should be blocked, this would create a “first to the ISO/IEC” dynamic in English, Chinese, German, French, Japanese, Dutch, and Polish. that would stall the development and standardization of future innovative document The success of the Translator (more than 385,000 downloads to date) format technologies that enhance customer choice. demonstrates how proprietary software and open source software • IBM’s self-serving campaign to limit choice and innovation, and to force its single organizations can work together to meet the needs of customers and how standard and preferred business model on consumers, should be resisted. Open XML and ODF can coexist as open standards in actual products to provide more choice to customers and developers. Microsoft has Taken Significant Steps to In May 2007, Microsoft announced the creation of an open source project Achieve Interoperability Among Open between China’s Uniform Office Format (UOF) and Open XML to benefit XML, ODF, and Other File Formats customers in China who need to use the UOF standard. Likewise, in July 2007, • Open XML-ODF Translator Project Microsoft announced that Turbolinux, a major distributor of Linux suites in Asia, In July 2006, Microsoft announced the creation of the Open XML Translator will be joining the Open XML-ODF Translator project to help in the creation project, which is creating tools to build a technical bridge between Open XML and of localized versions of the Open XML-ODF Translator for Asian language ODF. countries. On January 31, 2007, the Open XML-ODF Translator project announced the These Translator projects address the needs of customers such as governments availability of a translator for word processing documents. Available as a plug- that must support multiple formats. The Translator will enable these customers in for Microsoft Word XP, 2003, and 2007, the Translator enables document not only to achieve interoperability between document formats, but also to use conversion between the Open XML and the ODF text formats. When plugged into a wider range of applications. Microsoft Office Word, for example, the Translator provides customers with the choice of opening and saving documents in ODF rather than the native Open XML. • Andrew Hopkirk, Director of the U.K.’s National Computing Centre’s e- Developers of competing word processing programs that use ODF as the default Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) Programme: “This [Open format may also integrate this Translator into their products and enable users to XML-ODF Translator] tool promises to be a very significant development in the open and save documents in Open XML. trend towards practical open document standards and, critically, customer-friendly The Translator is available for anyone to download at no cost from the open source means to move between them. It can only be good for the IT industry’s customers software development site, SourceForge.net, at and product and service innovators. As the UK’s e-GIF Accreditation Authority and http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter. Since the Translator project was leading IT user membership organization, the National Computing Centre is very launched, it has become one of the 25 most active projects on SourceForge.net, pleased to see that Microsoft’s interoperability commitments are bearing fruit in

which hosts more than 100,000 open source software projects. this vital area and we congratulate them for that.” • 43 Ecma International and the Adoption of Open XML as an Open Standard

Ecma International is Dedicated to IT, Communications, and Consumer Electronics Standards • Ecma International, founded in 1961 and based in Geneva, is an internationally 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.

Open XML is an International Open S t a n d a r d • On December 7, 2006, Ecma announced that it had approved the “Office Open XML

44 File Formats” (Open XML) specification as an open standard named “ECMA-376.” F a c t S h e e t s

• 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.

Ecma International and the Adoption Benefits of Open XML • Open XML was developed as an international open standard through the collaborative efforts of leading companies of Open XML as an Open Standard 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. • 45 O v e r v i e w The Importance 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 of Document government documents. Because governments need different technologies to accomplish various tasks (and because they are already faced with the challenges associated with Format Choice in the deployment of legacy systems from multiple vendors), it is important to foster innovation and choice through neutral and competitive procurement policies that do Government 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.

The Value of Choice 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

46 numerous benefits: F a c t S h e e t s

• 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.

Procurement Preferences or Mandates for Document Formats Disserve Governments and their Constituents 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. • 47 Benefits of Open XML in Preserving Historical Documents

Open XML Already is an International O p e n S t a n d a r d • “ECMA-376 — Office Open XML File Formats” (Open XML) was approved in 2006 as an open standard by Ecma International (http://www.ecma-international.org), a Geneva- based standards organization, after consensus was achieved in a cross-industry, cross-organization collaboration that included Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, the British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the U.S. Library of Congress. • Governments and other customers requested that Open XML also be submitted to the International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) for further approval. Formal consideration by a Joint Technical Committee (JTC 1) of ISO/IEC is well under way, and approval (targeted for March 2008) will enhance marketplace adoption, and broaden choice, and is fully consistent with what has been done in other areas of technology (e.g., image formats, such as JPEG and TIFF; digital video formats, such as MPEG-2 and H.264; and document formats, such as HTML, ODF, and PDF/A), where overlapping standards (including multiple ISO/IEC standards) that address distinct user needs have been approved and

48 have substantially benefited customers. F a c t S h e e t s

Open XML is Platform Independent and Easily Coexists with Other Document Formats to Serve Different User N e e d s • While Microsoft initially developed the early predecessor to Open XML (just as IBM and Sun Microsystems initially developed ODF), Ecma participants, including Microsoft competitors, helped ensure that the final standard was fully open and vendor neutral. • Novell, Corel, Apple, Microsoft, Sun, and others have already adopted (or announced adoption of) both formats for their products on a variety of platforms — including Linux, Windows, Mac OS, Palm OS, Java, and .NET — thereby Benefits of Open XML in Preserving demonstrating that both formats can peacefully coexist. Thousands of developers, organizations, governments, and professionals spanning 67 countries and six continents have already expressed public support for Open XML and for its Historical Documents approval by ISO/IEC. • The open source Translator that Microsoft funded (http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter) is available to anyone at no cost; it enables interoperability between the Open XML and ODF formats for word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation documents.

Important Features Supporting Long-Term Document Retention, Preservation, and Accessibility • Open XML has been designed to be backward compatible with the content and functionality in billions of existing documents. This enhances archiving capabilities, which is one of the key reasons the open standard is supported by the U.S. Library of Congress and the British Library. • When Open XML becomes an ISO/IEC JTC 1 standard, maintenance of and future updates to the standard are expected to be performed by Ecma in collaboration with JTC 1. • Under Microsoft’s “Open Specification Promise” (OSP), any required Microsoft patent rights are freely available to all developers and customers to implement Open XML in either open source software or proprietary software. Both Ecma and ISO/IEC have publicly declared that Microsoft’s OSP, as well as two other royalty-free patent licensing alternatives that Microsoft has made available to all implementers, satisfy (and, indeed, exceed) the Ecma and ISO/IEC licensing requirements. Likewise, leaders in the open source community have applauded Microsoft’s extensive intellectual property rights (IPR) commitments to Open XML. Thus, there are no IPR issues associated with Open XML that should raise concerns about long-term document retention, preservation, or accessibility. • As a truly international standard, Open XML supports multiple languages and scripts.

• Open XML includes robust support for assistive technologies utilized by those with disabilities. • 49 Open XML-ODF Translator

The Open XML-ODF Translator Enables Interoperability • Microsoft funded the development of the Open XML- ODF Translator project as an open source project on SourceForge.net. • On January 31, 2007, the Open XML-ODF Translator project announced the availability of a translator for word processing documents. Available as a free plug-in download from http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter, the Translator enables document conversion between the Open XML and OpenDocument Format (ODF) text formats. When plugged into Microsoft Word XP, 2003, or 2007, for example, the Translator provides customers with the choice of opening and saving documents in ODF rather than the native Open XML. • Developers of competing word processing programs that use ODF as the default format may also integrate this Translator into their products and enable users to open and save

50 documents in Open XML. F a c t S h e e t s

• Novell has already made the Translator available with its version of OpenOffice. This enables OpenOffice users to open/save documents in the Windows and Linux platforms using Open XML. Other organizations also have translators under development. • The second phase of the Open XML-ODF Translator project, launched in December 2007, improved upon the Translator for text documents and introduced the conversion of spreadsheet and presentation documents between the Open XML and the ODF spreadsheet and presentation formats. The Translator is available in English, Chinese, German, French, Japanese, Dutch, and Polish.

Other Key Benefits of the Open XML-ODF Translator • The Translator addresses the needs of customers such as governments that must support multiple document formats. The Translator will enable these customers not only to achieve interoperability between Open XML and ODF, but also to use a wider range of applications. • By enabling conversion of documents from one file format to the other, this free technology enhances interoperability and brings greater choice and flexibility to the market for document creation, management, and archiving. • The success of the Translator (more than 385,000 downloads to date) demonstrates how proprietary software and open source software organizations can work together to meet the needs of customers, and how Open XML and ODF can coexist as open standards in actual products to provide more choice to customers and developers. • Translation technology promises to enhance choice and accessibility options for technology users, including those who are disabled.

The Development Process of the Open XML-ODF Tr a n s l a t o r • The Microsoft-funded open source Open XML-ODF Translator project is being developed by CleverAge of France and Sonata Software Ltd. of India, and tested by Dialogika of Germany and India-based Aztecsoft Ltd. The project will continue to be open source software on SourceForge.net, and freely available to all customers for development or use. • The open source software community has shown strong interest in the Translator project. Since the project was launched, it has become one of the 25 most active projects on SourceForge.net, which hosts more than

100,000 open source projects. • 51 There Are No

IPR Issues with 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 Open XML (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

52 instead offered all implementers their choice between (a) a negotiated RAND-Z license, (b) the OSP, or (c) the F a c t S h e e t s

CNS, all three of which provide for royalty-free use of Microsoft’s necessary patent Intergen, OpenText (LiveLink), Dataviz (DocumentsToGo on Palm OS), NeoOffice, and claims. Altova (XMLSpy), as well as those under development by Corel (WordPerfect), Gnome Indeed, Ecma and ISO/IEC have publicly stated that there are no IPR concerns with (GNumeric), Xandros, Linspire, Turbolinux, and others. These implementations are Open XML. In a document explaining the upcoming Ballot Resolution Meeting now available on many platforms, including Linux, Macintosh, Windows, Java, and (BRM), ISO/IEC noted that IPR issues will not be discussed, because, “IPR decisions .NET, and handheld devices (PalmOS, Symbian, and Windows Mobile). 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 • Key Aspects Of Microsoft’s OSP outstanding problems.” http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm (emphasis Any required Microsoft patent rights are freely available to all developers and added). Ecma issued a similar statement. customers of Open XML in either open source software or proprietary software. http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Ecma%20responses.pdf By stating that the covenant is “irrevocable,” Microsoft has assured users that there (Sec. 2.2). will not be a change in company policy at any point in the future. Thus, to recap, because the BRM and comment process is designed to ensure that Vendors, distributors, and users of Open XML implementations benefit from the the specification is fully and correctly defined, and because ISO/IEC has found no OSP just like implementers do. Consequently, there is no need for implementers to outstanding IP issues, there are no IPR issues associated with Open XML that should pass the promise on to others in their distribution channel, as it is always available to raise concerns about implementation, long-term document retention, preservation, everyone directly. or accessibility. No one needs to sign anything or even reference Microsoft to take advantage of the OSP. • Adoption of Open XML — Including By the Open Source Community — is Growing This form of patent non-assert enables open source software implementations. It is Exponentially, Underscoring that Developers and Customers are Comfortable that there especially convenient for open source software developers as there is no issue as to are no IPR issues with Open XML. whether or not the IP is sub-licensable. Thousands of developers, organizations, governments, and professionals spanning The OSP applies whether a party has a full or partial implementation. Parties get the 67 countries and six continents have already expressed public support for Open same irrevocable promise from Microsoft either way. XML and for its approval by ISO/IEC. (See www.openxmlcommunity.com/community.aspx and • Leaders In The Open Source Community Have Applauded Microsoft’s Extensive http://openxmldeveloper.org/posts.aspx) More than 2,000 members have joined IPR Commitments To Open XML. OpenXMLCommunity.org, and hundreds of independent software vendors are “Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the developing solutions using Open XML. listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses. We A growing number of implementations of Open XML — including from open source commend Microsoft’s efforts to reach out to representatives from the open source developers — are becoming available, including those released by Apple (Mac OS community and solicit their feedback on this text, and Microsoft’s willingness to make X Leopard, iWork 08, iPhone), Adobe (InDesign), Novell (OpenOffice), Microsoft modifications in response to our comments.” — Mark Webbink, Deputy General

(Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000), Mindjet (MindManager), Palm, Counsel, Red Hat, Inc. 53 “I am impressed with the new covenant, and am pleased to see that Microsoft is • FAQs expanding its use of what I consider to be a highly desirable tool for facilitating Q: Why are you applying both the CNS and the OSP to Open XML? the implementation of open standards, in particular where those standards are of A: To afford greater choice to the developer, implementer, and user communities. interest to the open source community…I think that this move should be greeted Microsoft formulated the CNS and made it available in October 2005. After with approval, and that Microsoft deserves to be congratulated for this action. I working with a number of members of the OSS community, Microsoft fine tuned hope that the standards affected will only be the first of many that Microsoft, its covenant and launched its OSP in 2006. The OSP was created to facilitate and hopefully other patent owners as well, benefit with similar pledges.” — Andy easier, royalty-free access to a range of Microsoft technologies and IP, including Updegrove, Standards Expert and Industry Analyst the Open XML formats, by all developers across both proprietary and OSS (http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060912140103877) platforms. We don’t know whether some will choose the OSP over the CNS, or “The Microsoft open specification promise is a very positive development. In the vice versa, but again we wanted to make that an option for all rather than simply university and open source communities, we need to know that we can implement terminate the CNS when the OSP came along. 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 Q: Why doesn’t the OSP apply to things that are merely referenced in the communities.” — RL “Bob” Morgan, Chair, Middleware Architecture Committee specification? for Education (MACE); Senior Technology Architect, University of Washington 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 • Microsoft’s OSP And CNS Are Very Similar To The IPR Commitments Of IBM And technologies.” If we included patent claims to the enabling technology, then as Sun For ODF And Other Specifications. an extreme example, it could be argued that one needs computer and operating The OSP and CNS are very similar to IBM’s Interoperability Specification Pledge system patents to implement almost any information technology specification. (available in Appendix C and at No such broad patent licenses to referenced technologies are ever given for http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/opensource/isplist.shtml and applicable to ODF) and specific industry standards. See( Andy Updegrove comment at Sun’s ODF Patent Statement (available in Appendix D and at http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060912140103877 http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php). (“[T]his is a common limitation ….”).) Notably, in the key areas of (1) versions of the standard covered, (2) application to required and optional portions, (3) non-application to referenced Q: Why doesn’t the OSP apply to all versions of the standard, including future technologies, (4) limitation to conforming implementations (or portions of revisions? implementations) of the specification, and (5) definition of “necessary claims,” A: The Open Specification Promise applies to all existing versions of the the OSP is broadly similar (and in many cases identical) to the IBM and Sun IPR specification(s) designated on the public list posted at commitments. http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/, unless otherwise noted with respect to a This is further evidence that Microsoft’s IPR approach for Open XML is reasonable particular specification (see, for example, specific notes related to web services

54 and common in the industry, and that attacks on it are baseless. specifications). This approach is common in standards licensing. Standards in the F a c t S h e e t s

IT industry are generally dynamic, evolving over time through different versions commitment works. Andy Updegrove: “This is the degree to which the great to reflect the experience of implementation and deployment, as well as the majority of standards organizations require a commitment.” But Microsoft’s changing nature of the environment. Since it is impossible for industry players to commitment goes further by extending royalty-free access to the required predict the future environment, they are generally unwilling to make an open- elements of optional portions of the Open XML specification as well. 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 Q: Why doesn’t the OSP also contain a royalty-free copyright commitment? of the applicability of the covenant or promise to future versions of their list of A: Since Ecma owns the copyright in the Open XML standard and makes the specifications. Microsoft and IBM limit the applicability to those specifications standard freely available under copyright, a copyright license from Microsoft is listed in the statement, which will be amended over time as new versions are not needed for Open XML. developed. Sun, by contrast, limits the applicability of its statement to subsequent versions of any specification “in which development Sun participates to the point Q: If you just give away the IP, why do you even bother with filing patents that of incurring an obligation as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant” a licence or relate to Open XML? issue a covenant. While the former approach reflects standard industry practice, A: IPR incentive systems and patents provide individuals and companies with there is obviously potential uncertainty in respect of future versions, until they incentives to create and innovate. It is a common business practice to file have been incorporated into the list. The latter approach, however, also generates patents on inventions and innovations. It often makes business sense and uncertainty, as the inquiry that the relying party has to undertake would seem is common practice for companies to license patents on royalty-free terms, onerous, i.e., about the nature of Sun’s participation under OASIS rules. and/or contribute technologies on royalty-free terms to industry efforts such as standardization. Often such patents and royalty-free contributions can ensure – Andy Updegrove: “As with traditional standard setting commitments, patent the standards specifications are available on royalty-free terms, and “protect” owners are wary about making open-ended promises, since in an extreme case implementers from individuals or companies not participating in the standards a competitor could seek to extend a standard to describe part of, or all of a process who may wish to profit from the standard by charging a royalty. 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 Q: Is this OSP sub-licensable? from organization to organization, typically when a new version of a standard A: There is no need for sub-licensing. This promise is directly applicable to you and is approved, a member remains bound by so much of the standard as does not everyone else who wants to use it. Accordingly, your distributees, customers change, but is not bound by any new material that is added to it unless it is then a and vendors can directly take advantage of this same promise, and have the member, and agrees to do so.” exact same protection that you have. http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060912140103877 Q: Can Microsoft revoke the OSP and does it ever expire? Q: Why does the OSP cover only “required portions” of the specification? A: No, Microsoft’s promise is an irrevocable promise. It is subject to some minimal

A: This is commonplace in the standards industry and is also how IBM’s patent restrictions that are industry standard. 55

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B Microsoft Open Specification Promise Microsoft Covenant Regarding Microsoft Office 2003 Available at http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx XML Reference Schemas and Ecma Office Open XML Published: September 12, 2006 | Updated: December 18, 2007 File Formats Available at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/HA102134631033.aspx Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation Microsoft irrevocably covenants that it will not seek to enforce any of its patent claims to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification (“Covered Implementation”), subject necessary to conform to the technical specifications for the Microsoft Office 2003 to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you XML Reference Schemas or the Ecma Office Open XML standard (Ecma 376) (the acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received “Specifications”) against those conforming parts of software products. This covenant from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file, shall not apply with respect to any person or entity that asserts, threatens, or seeks maintain or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft at any time to enforce a patent right or rights against Microsoft or any of its affiliates implementation of such Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not relating to any conforming implementation of the same Specification. 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 This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of the Microsoft issued patent Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only claims cover a conforming implementation of the Specifications or are enforceable, the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not or (ii) that such an implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual merely referenced in such Specification. “Covered Specifications” are listed below. property rights of any third party.

This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsoft’s issued patent No other rights except those expressly stated in this covenant shall be deemed claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered granted, waived or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise. In particular, Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of no rights in the Microsoft Office product, including its features and capabilities, are any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be hereby granted except as expressly set forth in the Specifications. deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise. Any Microsoft essential patent claims in connection with the Microsoft Office 2003 Covered Specifications (the promise applies individually to each of these specifications). XML Reference Schemas and Ecma 376 are also available under the Microsoft Open This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications. (See Specification Promise. Ecma 376 has been submitted to ISO/IEC JTC-1 for approval http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx.) New versions of previously covered under the fast-track process as ISO/IEC DIS 29500, and Microsoft’s promises under this specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list. In connection with the covenant and the Open Specification Promise apply to that document as well. specifications listed below, this Promise also applies to the required elements of optional

56 portions of such specifications. F a c t S h e e t s

APPENDIX C Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered IBM’s Interoperability Specifications Pledge Specification. Reference to IBM (or you) includes entities controlled by, controlling, and Available at http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/opensource/isplist.shtml under common control with IBM (or you), based on majority control.

IBM wants to encourage broad adoption of the Covered Specifications listed below. APPENDIX D Therefore, IBM irrevocably covenants to you that it will not assert any Necessary Sun’s ODF Patent Statement Claims1 against you for your making, using, importing, selling, or offering for sale Available at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php 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 Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described with you) assert any Necessary Claims against any Covered Implementations of IBM below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any or of any third party. This covenant is available to everyone directly from IBM, and implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) does not flow from you to your suppliers, business partners, distributors, customers v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof (“OpenDocument or others. So, if your supplier, business partner, distributor, customer or other party Implementation”) in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an independently takes an action that voids the covenant as to itself, IBM reserves the obligation, as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant (or commit to grant) patent licenses right to assert its Necessary Claims against that party, even though this covenant will or make equivalent non-assertion covenants. Notwithstanding the commitment above, remain in effect for you. 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 By making this irrevocable patent covenant with regard to the Specifications listed or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or below, IBM does not represent that it holds any or all Necessary Claims regarding the another party’s U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Open Specifications you choose to implement. Implementation.

Definitions This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Sun’s issued patents cover an 1”Necessary Claims” are those patent claims that can not be avoided by any OpenDocument Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) that an OpenDocument commercially reasonable, compliant implementation of the Required Portions of a Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any Covered Specification. “Required Portions” are those portions of a specification that third party. must be implemented to comply with such specification. If the specification prescribes discretionary extensions, Required Portions include those portions of the discretionary No other rights except those expressly stated in this Patent Statement shall be deemed extensions that must be implemented to comply with such discretionary extensions. granted, waived, or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise.

2”Covered Implementations” are those specific portions of a product (hardware, Similarly, nothing in this statement is intended to relieve Sun of its obligations, if any, software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered under the applicable rules of OASIS. • 57 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/openxmlpolicy http://openxmlcommunity.org http://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.