Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

When Should File Formats Be Placed in the Public Domain? 299

Posted by michael from the trick-question dept.
wccwcc writes "A lot has been said about file formats and standards creating network effects and huge profits. That said, is there a time when file formats should enter the public domain, or is it ok for companies to sit on them forever. These are some ideas on when and how file formats should enter the public domain, just like trademarks do when they become "generic"."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When Should File Formats Be Placed in the Public Domain? More

When Should File Formats Be Placed in the Public Domain?

Comments Filter:

  • Standards (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dzym ( 544085 )
    In direct opposition to my mostly pro-Microsoft stances, I am of the opinion that widely used formats, no matter what the licensing restrictions, ought to be forcibly placed into the public domain by law. This includes various compression schemes such as Sorenson used in QuickTime.

    • Re:Standards (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CheeseburgerBlue ( 553720 )
      I can agree with the idea so far as file formats go, but codecs are another question entirely.

      Car tyres are ubiquitous, but the tread patterns designed by the various manufacturers are still patented. The tread doesn't define how the tyre works, it just makes it work better -- similarly, Sorenson isn't a file format, it is a way of making the data that fits within a file format smaller.

      • Re:Standards (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BitwizeGHC ( 145393 )
        The problem is that you can't play a QuickTime file without paying for a patent-protected, licensed player. Contrast this with other Evilly Patented Formats, such as GIF and MP3, whose ubiquity was established in part because it's still legal to view/play those files without paying a royalty.

      • Car tyres are a poor analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:21PM (#3626585) Homepage Journal

        [analogy between car tyres and video codecs]

        You can drive down the street with any decent set of tyres; in general (excepting extreme road conditions), you don't have to match your tyres to the road. On the other hand, you can't watch a particular file with just any codec; it has to be able to understand the particular format of compressed data.

        Sorenson isn't a file format

        ASCII isn't a file format either, but both Sorenson Video and ASCII (as encodings) share the characteristics of a file format that apply to the present discussion.

    • Re: No, no, no..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:20PM (#3626582) Journal
      I respectfully beg to disagree.

      The very idea of "forcibly placing" ones work into the "public domain by law" is quite distasteful.

      If you spent 10 years developing a superior compression routine because you were sure it would revolutionize the graphics industry, wouldn't you expect to have some ability to control the sale of your work afterwards? I sure as hell would. I didn't invest 10 years of my life on a project just to have governmnet rip it away from me and say "Sorry pal, we're forcing that into the public domain."

      On the other hand, as I already posted here - I do think the copyright protection on digital works should expire after a limited time period. (Let's say we agree that 5 years is more than adequate?) This is all the time a developer should ever need as a "window" to make all the money he or she can from their work. After that, the balance shifts.... It causes more problems than it solves to let the developer retain rights to the old code. By now, he/she has surely developed something newer/fresher, because it's no longer possible to make a profit from the 5 year old software.

      • Re: No, no, no..... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Speare ( 84249 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @01:22PM (#3626807) Homepage Journal

        The very idea of "forcibly placing" ones work into the "public domain by law" is quite distasteful.

        Um, that's exactly what a patent is, and does. You document your method in detail for all to see, and in exchange, you can decide who uses the method for a limited amount of time. After the patent expires, potentially everyone benefits from your documentation freely.

      • Right more or less - its a poor way to address the issue.

        I would suggest as an alternative a Users Union - which would refuse to embrace or use file formats which are not Public Domain.

        The JPEG Joint Photographers Group is a successful example. I think it would be in the people's interest for government to have an outstanding policy that they should use and convert to public formats if at all possible.

        One possible route would be to leverage the freedom of information act by requesting documents in "public" formats. It may be a stretch, but i think the argument could be made under the FIA that data must be a. made available in the format best suited to the data and b. the only good format is an open format.

        Anyway - courts are the fastest way to change things.

        AIK
      • You're absolutely right.

        However, since it is clearly not beneficial to society to encourage these sorts of works to remain secrets, the government should afford the creators not a single atom of legal protection. If someone should reverse engineer the format and make it public, the original creator should be totally out of luck.

        As an enticement to do what we want -- to have that work be in the public domain -- we should extend some protections. This is in fact the way that patents and copyrights work.

        Although the govt. certainly can force works into the public domain, they just have to fairly compensate the author. That's how eminent domain operates; in an emergency that is somewhat difficult to imagine with regards to file formats, they can also force the author to open them, e.g. in order to save lives or property. It's the same thinking that permits houses to be destroyed in order to contain fires in cities if it's really felt necessary.

      • Re: No, no, no..... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by xonker ( 29382 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @02:07PM (#3626999) Homepage Journal
        I didn't invest 10 years of my life on a project just to have governmnet rip it away from me and say "Sorry pal, we're forcing that into the public domain."

        The question, though, is whether your right to profit outweighs society's interest in being able to exchange data without paying outrageous prices for software, the most obvious example being Word doc files. The proprietary file format is what keeps people locked into Word, and it costs our government, businesses, schools and individuals billions of dollars annually. All that for the profit of one company.

        You might spend 10 years creating a file format, but the bottom line is that to make money off of it, it has to be used with some program that customers use to store, create or manipulate data that they own - they should not be restricted in ways that they can access that data, which is the upshot of a proprietary file format. I agree that people should have the right to profit from their inventions, but not in a situation that puts the majority of society at a severe disadvantage.

        Also - many people would argue that putting file formats in the public domain would have a "chilling effect" on the development of new file formats. I heartily disagree with that. We've already seen a number of file formats developed for Open Source / Free Software programs, or developed by consortiums where many universities and businesses sponsor the development of standards for their mutual interest. This is far preferable to the development of formats by companies that then try to monopolize a market and charge outrageous prices for their software. Yes, it might slow down development, but is that a bad thing? I think not. The cost of upgrading software to keep up with software upgrades that are driven by profit motives instead of actual technological necessity is draining the budgets of schools, businesses and individuals who have to keep up with this endless cycle. Something that would slow this cycle would be of enormous benefit to the vast majority of society - it would be harmful only to those companies like Microsoft that depend on perpetual upgrades for revenue. I can't say I'd weep for them.

        This discussion is particularly timely now that Microsoft is trying to pioneer subscription software. If you can't buy the program outright, and a company can shut off your access to data you own at any time, the format should be open to allow people access to their data through other means. I can easily see a scenario with Microsoft holding businesses hostage and raising their subscription prices every six months.

        Even 5 years is too long to wait to be able to get at your own data.

    • Re:Standards (Score:5, Informative)

      by JKR ( 198165 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:21PM (#3626584)
      Arguably, Sorenson is a codec, not a format - Quicktime is a format, just as MS AVI is a format and Windows Media 8 is a codec. Some other file types are more difficult to classify, but MS stuff in particular seems to adhere to this sort of division - consider WAV files, for example. The RIFF format coverns how the data is stored, but says nothing about the actual data - that can be MP3, uLaw, OGG...

      I think it's helpful to make this distinction because the formats can easily be made public domain, whereas the codecs are usually subject to patents and/or require licensing.

      File interchange becomes much simpler if you stop worrying about codecs, and concentrate on supporting formats - Linux tools for video could read & write the AVI format (just interleaved RIFF chunks) but either use a free codec, or none at all, without creating yet another video file standard.

      MS Word is a different problem - although RTF is the preferred interchange format anyway. Certainly my partner (who occasionally works as a freelance proof-reader) uses RTF extensively with her clients instead of Word native format. The RTF v1.6 spec. is available in the MSDN, and includes sample reader & writer source code.

      Jon.

  • Proprietary formats really become a problem... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by antirename ( 556799 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:09PM (#3626540)
    When the company that created them no longer exists. At the moment, I'm trying to convert about 20 gigs of obsolete files to a modern format. Apparently no one knows anything about the old format, but for some reason we are paying a company for "support", and they aren't at all interested in helping me with the conversion. Yeah, I can't say that I blame them, but if I do it myself could I be violating the law (U.S.)? Being forced to reverse engineer something is bad enough, having the lawyers tell you it might be illegal or a DMCA violation or something is enough to make you want to pull your hair out. Maybe we don't have the best lawyers in the world, but unless you work for a tech company how up to speed are YOUR lawyers on this? Especially with Hollings cranking out new bills... So, in my opinion, hell yes there should be an experation date! There is no logical reason why trying to convert a 25 year old format when no one else seems to know how should present a legal issue.

    • DMCA is no problem here (Score:5, Insightful)

      by yerricde ( 125198 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:25PM (#3626606) Homepage Journal

      having the lawyers tell you it might be illegal or a DMCA violation

      The DMCA's circumvention ban makes an explicit exemption regarding reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability (17 USC 1201(f) [cornell.edu]).

      So, in my opinion, hell yes there should be an experation date! There is no logical reason why trying to convert a 25 year old format when no one else seems to know how should present a legal issue.

      If we were to allow (well-thought-out) software patents, this wouldn't be a problem, as any 20-year-old invention (in the USA, patents last up to filing date + 20 years) would be described in great detail.

      • The DMCA's circumvention ban makes an explicit exemption regarding reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability (17 USC 1201(f) [cornell.edu]).

        If this is true, then couldn't it be argued that DCESS(?) is a valid reverse engineering exercise for purposes of interoperability with the Linux operating system?

        • If this is true, then couldn't it be argued that [DeCSS] is a valid reverse engineering exercise for purposes of interoperability with the Linux operating system?

          The difference in the DVD-file-format case is that DeCSS was first released as a Windows executable, useful for nothing but copying DVDs. The DeCSS developers should have finished the Linux kernel's UDF drivers before publicly releasing the DeCSS application.

        • The DMCA's circumvention ban makes an explicit exemption regarding reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability

        ...unless you're interoperating with an open source operating system, I take it? Didn't work as a defence for DeCSS.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:09PM (#3626544)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Exactly! Every democratic government has a duty to use open file formats.
    • why not do a step further: make the government use open or even free software, just like france, argentina, peru and others try to do. not to mention that I'm from argentina :)

      • Re:When public domain file formats should be used (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The idea here is that we do not want to dictate the software used, but we want to ensure that whatever software is used, OTHER software is free to interoperate with it, including open source software. By levelling the playing field through open file formats, open source software would actually be able to compete without all the belly aching you hear about "not being able to read and write Office formats" and the such.

    • agree, government should require public formats (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AdamBa ( 64128 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @01:20PM (#3626798) Homepage
      Proprietary formats that store user data are bogus. It's your data, and you are dependent on some company staying in business and continuing to support their format? So it's fine if someone wants to store game levels or whatever in some proprietary format, but the second there is data in there that belongs to the user, the format needs to be documented.

      And the best way the government can accomplish this is not by passing a law -- I am strongly against the government taking something that a company feels is proprietary and simply making it public. But, it could be accomplished simply by stating that the government itself will only use documented formats for data, which will require all major software vendors to document theirs.

      AND just to clarify, this is not saying that all formats should be standardized or designed by committee or only changed with public approval...companies can make whatever format they want and change it whenever they want, as long as they document it.

      So for this I came up with the idea of the Open Data Format Initiative [osopinion.com]...which I have done nothing with yet, but might one of these years. I even bounced the idea off a few politicians [osopinion.com]!

      - adam

      • It's your data, and you are dependent on some company staying in business and continuing to support their format?
        And you think crusty old COBOL programs are bad.
        That's actually the reason that big business is getting more and more interested in Open Source. Any data stored in a proprietary format is a ticking time bomb. Expect Star Office to take off and become dominant. If Sun can't or won't do whatever with Star Office, there's always Open Office which WILL be file compatible and documented, source if nothing else. I like cheap insurance on critical resources.
          • Expect Star Office to take off and become dominant

          Keep expecting. I spoke to our IS guys recently and tried to sell them on the benefits of the XML format of Star/OpenOffice. They simply weren't interested, because, hey, Microsoft Office will always be available, right? They just didn't see the benefits of using an open format, even when I pointed out that it's far easier to convert from an open to a proprietary format than vice versa.

          As a first step to persuading them, I've replaced my corporate licensed Microsoft Office with OpenOffice 1.0, and have been creating, reading and writing Word binary format files with it just fine. At least, none of the MS Office users that have been reading them have noticed anything different. I feel bad about continuing to use the proprietary Microsoft format, but at least this way I get to go back to the IS guys in a couple of months and point out that Office is now an expensive luxury that we can get rid of. Once we've done that, then we can convert to XML documents.

          That's the strength that I see in Star/OpenOffice; the ability to migrate in two steps, so that nobody is even so much as inconvenienced (in fact people have been using OpenOffice on my machine without even realising that it's not MS Office). But it's going to take years to dig out those entrenched copies of Office, and Microsoft will fight damn hard to keep people using their proprietary formats, as (in conjunction with FUD about non-compatibility) it's the only weapon they have left.

      • it could be accomplished simply by stating that the government itself will only use documented formats for data, which will require all major software vendors to document theirs.

        What does "stating that the govt will" means? Usually, in a republic (i.e. three powers), that is done passing a law. Even if it is a law that applies to internal organization (as this one would be), it is the only official way a government can "state" that it will do something (and make sure that it will keep doing it in the next administration).

        I'm curious to know why passing a law about this bothers you if you want this done. Could you explain yourself more?

        • Blockquoth the poster:

          Even if it is a law that applies to internal organization (as this one would be), it is the only official way a government can "state" that it will do something (and make sure that it will keep doing it in the next administration).

          Actually, it could also just be an administrative rule or executive order. And the intent, of course, is to say not that a law be passed. The original poster was saying, the government need not mandate open, free, or shared formats. It votes with its purse ... if the government -- a major economic engine -- insists on open formats, then vendors have a huge reason to adopt them.
        • I wasn't clear. I meant I did not want a law saying "all data formats must now be documented" -- I consider that to be intellectual property theft by the government. What I wanted was the government to say "all data format that we use must now be documented."

          If this was done by law or executive order or whatever is less important, although as you say the method might influence how permanent it is. But I think if the government even just said that government procurement people should favor documented data formats, Microsoft would have the Office spec available the next day (or the day after it got done complaining about the new rule).

          - adam

      • Published in the Waterloo Courier (Iowa) 2002/04/07:

        TO THE EDITOR:

        With the Microsoft antitrust case so much in the news lately, and since Iowa is one of the nine states opting out of the DOJ settlement, I find it curious that all this media attention has missed one simple point: the government could end Microsoft's monopoly tommorow, with the stroke of a pen.

        Governor Vilsack could simply sign an executive order that, henceforth all digital communication with the Sate of Iowa must be transmitted and stored in "open" (publicy documented, royalty free) file formats. Since Microsoft's popular Office file formats (.DOC, .XLS, .PPT) are propretary, they would be unacceptable under the new rule. Any email sent to any government agency with a DOC or XLS file attachment would be automatically returned, with a request to re-send the content in an open file format.

        The downstream repercussions would be massive. It would eliminate the need for businesses and individuals to purchase Microsoft software, at least as far as State business is concerned, and would popularize the notion that "not everyone uses Microsoft." Within weeks, it would be common knowledge among computer users, that some people can't read DOC files, and you can easily get around this problem with Save-As.

        The single biggest obstacle to Microsoft's competition is not its illegal business practices, but simple inertia -- everyone else uses Microsoft. And no business that hopes to stay in business would risk "turning off" a potential customer by requesting a different file format.

        The State, however, can and should make that request. Transparency in government is a hallmark of modern democracy. When I am forced to purchase Microsoft products in order to view "public" documents, then the term "Microsoft Tax" is not just a metaphor, it's a disgrace.

        --jrd

        PS: Still no reply from Vilsack... :-/

  • Companies with virtual monopolies... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:09PM (#3626545) Homepage

    Companies with virtual monopolies, like Microsoft, should be required to place their file formats in the public domain (make them public and free). Otherwise, monopolies can use file formats to compete unfairly.

    One problem with putting the Microsoft Word file formats in the public domain is that the "file formats" include all of MS Word's quirkiness and bugs that affect the way documents are stored. These would have to be carefully documented, also.

    • Re:Companies with virtual monopolies... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BoyPlankton ( 93817 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:23PM (#3626594) Homepage
      Companies with virtual monopolies, like Microsoft, should be required to place their file formats in the public domain (make them public and free). Otherwise, monopolies can use file formats to compete unfairly.

      I really believe that if you are going to impose a restriction like this against MS then you should impose it industry-wide. Otherwise, future virtual monopolies will use file formats to compete unfairly.

      • Lifespan of File Formats and other IP (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sean Clifford ( 322444 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @01:21PM (#3626802) Journal
        FuturePower(R) says: Companies with virtual monopolies, like Microsoft, should be required to place their file formats in the public domain (make them public and free). Otherwise, monopolies can use file formats to compete unfairly.

        BoyPlankton replies: I really believe that if you are going to impose a restriction like this against MS then you should impose it industry-wide. Otherwise, future virtual monopolies will use file formats to compete unfairly.

        It's been clearly demonstrated that Microsoft can and does use its monopoly power abusively. No, it's not illegal to be a monopoly. But yes, it is illegal to abuse your position as a monopoly. That's what the Sherman Anti-Trust act is all about.

        You can't use some prior-restraint against a company that might become a monopoly because it would be "unfair" to a convicted abusive monopolist. At best that's being an apologist for abusive monopolies.

        At the very least Microsoft should be forced to open their file formats and APIs, fully documented, in the interest of interoperability with other platforms. It has been shown time and time again that they will otherwise abuse their position as a monopoly to crush other companies and projects (Dr. DOS, PC-DOS, Netscape, Samba). This clearly should be part of the remedy phase of the trial. Let's remember - they've already been convicted. Now we're looking at remedies that are supposed to preclude them from engaging in such behaviour in the future. Clearly, a promise to do so is woefully inadequate.

        IMHO, All Intellectual Property, 25 years after the death of the creator/IP holder or 75 years after first publication in any event. Otherwise Disney, AOL-Time-Warner, and a handful of other companies will own our culture. The Constitution makes a very specific provision for copyright expiration, the purpose of copyrights, and the purpose of expiring them for the benefit of the public.

  • A file encoding scheme is protectable by patent. This makes file formats proprietary for as long as their patents are effective. To me this seems fair. If I create a file format and want it to be adopted as a standard, I will make it public domain or else adopt a liberal licensing scheme. On the other hand if I stand to make money from this file format, then I have to guard it much more closely - but then risk missing out on industry adoption. I don't see anything wrong with this system.
  • If people use an open source format and refuse to accept documents in a proprietary fomat then the point is mute. Instead of bitching about company xyz (or MS), start using programs that utilize open formats right now.

    I guess it takes balls, and a LACK of apathy to start demanding that documents sent to you aren't in foo.fooo format. Balls are in short supply in the "corporate" world where apathy reigns supreme at the moment.

    BTW, if you e-mail me, you e-mail will bounce if it's not a text or html message. It's a start for me. How about you?

    cluge

    • Re:here is an idea (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 )
      the point is mute.

      The point may be unable to speak, but it may also be moot.

      Just your friendly neighborhood grammar asshole.
    • The problem with this approach is that the vast majority of lusers out there have no idea whatsoever what a file format even is. They just write a document, or prepare a presentation and save it for later use and dissemination. If you tell someone at XYZ Corp to send you the file in a different format, they'll look at you like you're from Lalande 21185B or some other equally outlandish place.

      Like it or not, Microsoft owns the document market right now, to the point where a book called [newriders.com]
      Building Linux Virtual Private Networks was written using Microsoft Word.
      • I don't care how they look at me, if they want my business (and they do) they will send me their sales document in the format that I specify it. IF the sales people can't perform the one simple function of giving me a document I can read, then I would never trust them with providing me a product I can use.

        cluge
  • I generally dislike proprietary file formats. All file formats should be standardized. Currently there are many companies (MS, Adobe, etc.) who make money because their file format is the standard and they are the only ones who make software that can deal with that file format. If all file formats were standardized then there would be no problems of not being able to read someone elses file. And you would be able to choose from a variety of applications for dealing with those files. So while your friend may like the full featured word processor of doom, and you like the very lite textpad, if their is a universal standard for word processing documents you can read his file and he can read it after you edit it. In the end the companies that make the best software will win, not the companies that own the file formats.
  • It seems that a large part of the original article attempts to make comparisons between medicines and document file formats. The first thought that comes to my mind is that it's not a valid comparison at all - simply because medicines are subject to government regulation and file formats aren't.

    Personally, I believe the complaints about filetypes remaining proprietary long after the original developers have a use for them is just one more illustration of a larger issue. Copyrights on computer software are being granted for excessively long periods of time. Unlike "traditional" works (such as a fiction novel), a piece of software isn't likely to be marketable for more than a few years. If there really is any difference between "digital media" and "traditional media" that requires updated laws, this is it.

    I think the current laws are quite workable to cover patents, copyrights, and trademarks for computer software/hardware - with this one exception. There's really no compelling reason to grant a software author (or hardware designer) exclusive rights to their work beyond the window of "financial opportunity" they can enjoy from it.
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not entirely sure how legally a file format can be public after a (relatively) short period of time such as 25 years. Most software methods and formats are copyrighted, not patented. They last a billion years, and yes, even after the company is dead. Few companies patent software for reasons I'm sure we've read on /. a billion times over. So, yeah, it sucks that file formats are lining the pockets of companies for a long time, but the alternative is to make ludicrous exceptions to copyright law. After file format protection goes, it's only a matter of time before the next big thing loses its protection as well...
    • You have absolutely no clue about the copyright law. You cannot copyright an idea. Copyrights are given for expression, that is an implementation of an idea. "Software methods" cannot be copyrighted; file format specification cannot be copyrighted. However, either of the above can be "protected" by either patents or trade secrets. Most proprietary file formats and codecs are trade secrets. Repeat after me: there is no such thing as a "copyright on file format".

      Secondly, patents do not last "a billion years". They last 20 years from the date of application. Trade secrets however can last indefinitely -- as long as the corporation takes care to keep them secret.
  • ... that the first thing I saw when loading this page was a link to a .PDF document. :) heh

  • Speaking of formats... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:23PM (#3626597) Homepage Journal

    As a semi-pro graphics artist, I really hate proprietary stock image formats. I can understand their desire to curb rampant copying, but I also dislike the lack of interoperability.

    One example is the SNX format used by the Second Nature company for their screen saver images. I've purchased the discs, I would like to use them on Linux, not the native Windows.

    A worse example is the Hemera HPI format used for their stock "photo objects." These are 8 CD sets of about 50,000 images in a proprietary 24bpp + alpha channel format. Something which TIFF or PNG formats handle very well. Every time I want to use an image, I have to load up Windows, use their proprietary image search and export tool.

    It's my estimation that in the long run, inconvenience added through proprietary "protections" will cost these royalty-free image companies far more sales than the illicit warez-ing of their content. And what happens when those stock companies are not around to support their proprietary converters? One Windows update and users are cut off from the image libraries which should be simple to access.

    • How are the images handled? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Perianwyr Stormcrow ( 157913 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:41PM (#3626665) Homepage
      Is it via a plugin in your illustration software that allows embedding only?

      Or, does it convert from their format into something more usable?

      If it does the latter, seems the first thing I'd do is use a standard Windows macro program to automate the process of extracting images, and let it run overnight.
  • In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work

  • ZIP files (Score:2, Informative)

    by Snard ( 61584 )
    In early versions of PKZIP for DOS, there was a file named "DEDICATE.DOC" (actually a plain text file, not a Word document; MS Word hadn't usurped that extension in those days). The contents of this file for the version 1.1 release follows:

    Dedication
    ----------

    The file format of the files created by these programs, which file format
    is original with the first release of this software, is hereby dedicated to
    the public domain. Further, the filename extension of ".ZIP", first used in
    connection with data compression software on the first release of this
    software, is also hereby dedicated to the public domain, with the fervent
    and sincere hope that it will not be attempted to be appropriated by anyone
    else for their exclusive use, but rather that it will be used to refer to
    data compression and librarying software in general, of a class or type
    which creates files having a format generally compatible with this
    software.
    Of course, the fact that the file format (and application note) for this program was made freely available and usable to all, allowed numerous other companies to make their own ZIP compatible programs, many of them financially more successful than PKZIP. But that's another story...

  • Coca-Cola (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MoxCamel ( 20484 )
    Coca-Cola is a good example of a proprietary "format." Their recipe for Coke is a company secret. They don't have it Registered because that would require they register the formula (where everyone would be able to see it). So Coke has simply relied on their ability to keep the formula secret.

    The implications of requiring a company to release the specifications of their file format, would be much further reaching. Imagine Pepsi lobbying for Coca-Cola to open up their formula, because it's been proprietary for however-many years.

    We tend to view the technology industry in a vaccum. But in fact, many discussions like this have already been resolved in the "real world."

    The market needs to drive these things. If corporations feel safe using a proprietary format, let them use it. Then let them get bit on the ass for it several years later when they can't read their historical documents with the latest version of their proprietary software. Eventually, the market will demand open formats. In fact, there seems to be evidence (no, I can't cite, you'll just have to trust me or do your own research) that this is already happening.
    • This analogy between soda and file formats is completely flawed. The chemical formula for a soda is not comparable at all to a file format. Soda is not ever, necessary for any business function, and is drunk by one person, who buys that can of soda. A file format is often used for communication, is often necessary to be exchangable for many business functions, and is only a secondary product. That is, it's not what people pay for, but it's produced by something they pay for. The formula for a soda is used to produce the product itself.

      Of course, this is not to say that I necessarily disagree with you; I think there are many things that the 'free market' won't work to decide, but it may work to decide this. I do like the point that an earlier poster raised about whether or not tax money should go towards any product which uses proprietary file formats.

    • nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RelliK ( 4466 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @02:24PM (#3627047)
      Coke is not a file format. Open file formats are required for interoperability. Opening Coke recipe is not required for interoperability. Case closed.

      Eventually, the market will demand open formats. In fact, there seems to be evidence (no, I can't cite, you'll just have to trust me or do your own research) that this is already happening.

      Bullshit. When the company has a monopoly the market has no choice. The one thing most "free market" advocates fail to grasp is that the marked forces cease to work once monopoly is established. Proprietary file formats amount to an unlimited monopoly. At least with copyrights and patents the monopoly is limited in duration.

    • The main problem with your analogy is this. If I was alking down the street and found Coke's Secret agreement I could then start producing it. I could even publish it on the internet. Same thing if I ever decided to "reverse engineer" thier soda forumla by using people with perfect taste or gas chromotography.

      Now, If I reverse engineer microsofts Copyrighted file format and release a tool to create it then I can actually be sued by ms. It is a government protected monopoly instead of a closely gaurded secret. I personally think that if "We the people" are going to give out monopolies it should be done according to what is in the best public interests. My personal feeling is that all software should be set as a patentable work with only the output able to be copyrighted. Thats really a much longer discussion than I have the time to go into right now though. :) However, it does mean that if we are to give microsoft a legal monopoly then there should be a expiration date set on it at that point. The balance should be maitained between driving new innovation and ... putting as many ideas as possible into the public domain to drive more innovation.

  • There may be many patents involved with products that also generate or use proprietary file formats but the patent itself can not protect the secrecy required.

    And, why is that?

    Patents and trade secrets are diametrically opposed to each other. You simply can not have a trade secret and a patent cover the same idea or concept.

    The reason is that patents must fully disclose how to make the "object" and allow anyone following the patent information to do so. That is a fundamental requirement of a valid patent.

    A trade secret on the other hand only works because that kind of information is keep from everyone else. So, the two concepts are fundamentally opposed.

    That does not mean that software covered by a patent can not use proprietary and hidden formats. Rather it simply means that the file format is not covered by the patent.

    It is certainly possible for a software program to be covered in part by a patent, covered in part by copyright and covered in part by a trade secret (non disclosed file formats). Copyrights might disclose enough information to "out" a file format but the entire source code does not to be part of the copyright application. Parts of it can easily be and usually are redacted to hide key parts. No doubt the code that actually generates the formats would be conveniently redacted out.

    The real question is whether anyone should buy software that uses proprietary or non disclosed file formats. Clearly SUN (StarOffice) and OpenOffice.Org think it is a real advantage to not use a proprietary file format (XML). Microsoft thinks a proprietary one ties customers to their own product lines and thinks it is a great idea. But, it is only a great idea for the vendor not the customer. The customer would always be better off if a known format is being used and the known format is not proprietary. After all, the data belongs to the customer not the vendor of the code. And, the vendor should not taking any step which reduces the customers legitimate use of their own data. (Even if it strengthens the monopoly.)
  • I don't believe that a file structure, protocol, or grammar should be copyrightable or patentable. Such things are (in my opinion) ideas or concepts, rather than implementations. A particular header file, piece of documentation, or interpreter describing or processing such a structure is and should be covered by copyright; but I feel that the underlying data structures should not be, any more than a mathematical formula or physical law.

    Should companies be forced to publish their internal data structures and protocols? In general, no -- we already have too many laws to control the behavior of people and organizations. But for external/shared data, I feel there is a good fair-use argument for requiring documentation: If you export or import the data, you [should] have an obligation to describe the relevant public syntax and external semantics. The omission of such documentation would be considered a product failure, and would leave the vendor open to warranty issues, by failing to deliver a product that performs as advertised. "No documentation? Give me my money back."

    Bottom line: I think it should be impossible for a vendor to obtain IP protection over a data structure or similar metadata; I think that a vendor should be expected (but not compelled except by market forces) to document external interfaces; and I think that a vendor should only be able to cling to a proprietary format as a trade secret, i.e. it should not be possible to prevent reverse engineering.

  • Technique to defuse monopolies? Restore fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Komodo ( 7029 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @12:55PM (#3626712) Homepage
    Monopolies imply ubiquity.

    Ubiquity may imply generic-ness as a 'de-facto public standard'.

    If that's the case, MS Office may well already be a generic public standard and the People may be well within their rights to revoke its special protection as a patented, trademarked, or copyrighted entity.

    For that matter, this could apply to ANY kind of deliberate technological obfuscation from the CD and DVD 'red book' up through and including all of the MS office file formats and the Win32 API's.

    If this were the case, it would provide the safety valve that we need to prevent the growth of dangerous technological institutions without bounds - feel free to make yourself popular, but make yourself UNFAIRLY popular and the People will take back their rights of fair use.
  • "These are some ideas on when and how file formats should enter the public domain, just like trademarks do when they become "generic"."

    They should never leave the public domain. The notion that file formats should be patentable is ludicrous.
  • Companies should be bound by law to maintain DTDs and XML converters for their proprietary formats.

    Every time they change format, they MUST provide a converter. That would take care of the content loss every damn time M$ changes its fuckin' formats.

    The last thing a company does before filing for Chapter 11 is provide the converter WITH their filing.

    I've had to carry some files through "upgrade" after "upgrade."
    • Companies should be bound by law to maintain DTDs and XML converters for their proprietary formats.

      Most proprietary file formats are by nature binary though, how would you represent say an image as XML? You can't of course, and often files are mixed textual/binary such as MS Word files.

      Really I think there is a line to be drawn here - sometimes (as in the case with MS) file formats are being kept secret to facilitate lockin. This is clearly unacceptable, as it impedes the economy and restricts competition. I seriously doubt the MS Word file format contains vast amounts of innovation that everyone could steal if they were forced to document it.

      On the other hand, especially with codecs for instance, there COULD be a lot of intellectual property involved that has cost time and money to research. Should they be forced to open up as well? Clearly not. Really this discussion is about, where to find the balance.

  • Excuse me for my general cluelessness, but since when are file formats protected by copyright, patent or trademark? They might be trade secrets, but that is a very different thing.

    I suppose in the current corrupt state of patents, someone might be able to get a patent on a particular way of storing data. Audio/Video codecs might have more justification. Copyright is not available -- the datafile is a mixture of works of the format creators and the data providers.

    As a simple matter of prudence, just say NO! Why trust your important data to some proprietary format you cannot unlock if the company goes belly up or otherwise becomes unwilling to provide? Isn't the suffering of MS-Word users enough warning?

  • If they just used sense when they made the fucking formats in the first place, then reverse engineering them for compatibility purposes wouldn't be such a pain in the ass.

    Others have already covered the difference between a format and a codec, so I don't need to go into it here.

  • It think, the industry is becoming more and more aware of the dangers of proprietary file formats.
    Beeing an mechanical engineer myself, I have the problem every single day when designing in CAD. Ever tried to convert a model from Pro/Engineer to CATIA? Or EMS to IDEAS? Or...
    Sure, after only some decades, they came up with exchange formats like the teethless IGES [nist.gov] which everybody can interpret it's own way. IGES in Pro/E flavor (i.e. created by Pro/E in the way they thought is right) cannot be read by CATIA and IGES in CATIA flavor cannot be read by Pro/E. (Forget the ridiculus AutoDesk products, nobody want to design in them anyway, so no reason for data exchange...)
    In recent years, the industry has become aware of the huge amount of time and money they spend on dealing with proprietary file formats and they have pushed for better standardized formats like STEP [steptools.com] and VDA-FS [www.vda.de]. In fact, they have not only pushed, but done the job themselves...
    One problem though: IGES, STEP and VDA-FS are still not public domain, they are owned by certain groups and will cost money as soon as it is feasible. So, the latest trend is XML - and this time, it's gonna be right!

    BTW: One very exiting project is using XML for exchanging dynamic models between simulation programs, like this approach at my own university [ikp.liu.se] in Linköping, Sweden.
  • The linked-to article is confusing two things. First is when a trademarked name is ruled to be generic because the company was not enforcing it. One example (from a quick Google search) is "escalator". There are many words that are *used* as if they had become generic (kleenex, walkman, xerox, q-tip, band-aid, etc) and in some cases other companies have attempted to show that the term *has* become generic, but I don't think a lot of names have actually gone that way.

    Now aspirin is a special case. The *patent* on aspirin was held by Bayer (a German company) and expired around the beginning of World War I. However Bayer still held the *trademark* on the name aspirin. But the US government stripped it from Bayer as part of the treaty ending the war. This is a quote from a longer article [subportal.com] (about Cipro, also owned by Bayer and under patent suspension threat from the US gov):

    The Alien Property Custodian, a wartime office charged with seizing enemy-owned assets on U.S. territory, was entitled to confiscate all German property -- intellectual and physical -- and that included the Bayer and Aspirin names. On Dec. 12, 1918, when the war had ended, all of Bayer's assets, including the names, were auctioned off to an American company, Sterling Drug.

    In the 1920s, American courts dealt a huge blow to Sterling when it allowed Aspirin to be used as a generic term at the retail level. Other companies began selling the compound under that name, capitalizing on Bayer's huge advertising campaign initiated before the Great War. In Germany, Canada and many other countries, Aspirin is still a trademark (hence the capital A) and if you ask a pharmacist for aspirin, you will get Bayer Aspirin.

    ANYWAY having said all that I think it is silly to say that because file formats are used a lot, they may become generic. A lot of people drink Coke, and nobody is saying its formula is about to become generic.

    - adam

  • But to be honest, the IT bods should know better than to keep their companies crown jewels locked in a safe that they will only be able to open for a certain amount of time.

    • And once you get a foot caught in that treadmill, you're forever waving your data gioidbye unless you churn it ALL with every revision.

      I know I've permanently lost lots of IP this way. Stuff I'lll have to reinvent because the article I wrote is in a file format that is no longuer supported.

      That's why I stopped upgrading my OS & word processor on at least one machine. I can't afford to eat the cost of recreating the old stuff.

  • DWG is the file format used to store AutoCAD drawings. AutoCAD, arguably, is the most popular piece of drafting software for the PC. How does AutoCAD maintain it's sales of ever more complicated releases?

    A proprietary file format. Since many architectural firms have large databases of AutoCAD drawings they need to use tools that will read their previous work. Sure, DWG has been reverse-engineered a couple times by other parties, but always with mixed results.

    Thus firms are a stuck buying AutoCAD to access and modify their drawings.

    There have been stabs at cross-application/platform drawing formats (DXF) but they are quite limited compared to DWG.

    Actually, the situation reminds me a lot of MS-Word's DOC format.

  • Copyright is sufficient (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alex Belits ( 437 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @02:20PM (#3627038) Homepage

    The "exclusivity" caused by copyright and applied to the actual product is sufficient to give the format creator sufficient advantage already -- what patents and trade secrets on formats (as opposed to code being copyrighted) do is giving an additional protection against competitors or even collaboration that was never the intention of copyright or even patent laws.

    It's a side effect that benefits copyright owners, however this effect is accidental, unintentional (where were no file formats when law was written), and counterproductive, so the right way to remove this unnecessary additional protection is to strip it from all means that this protection can be achieved through. If it will be illegal to use patent protection against interoperable software products, or prosecute against trade secret disclosure made for interoperability purpose, copyright and patents will be still there, but interoperability will get a special protection against patents and trade secrets. It will be still illegal to copy someone's else code into a product without a permission, but, say, an employee disclosing a format that company is unwilling to publish will not be afraid of prosecution because trade secret won't even exist for that kind of information.

    In fact most of companies will benefit from this "blanket" exemption of patents and trade secrets protection for interoperability purpose, they protect those things because other have them, but they also are stuck with unreasonable licenses that stem from this protection, so most of them will better off if this protection will be lifted. Ones that won't, are most likely not benefitting anyone else anyway, and it's not the copyright and patent law's purpose to encourage parasitic behavior.

  • It's already been established that a company can't own a set of op codes for a cpu. File formats should certainly have the same protection, the data they contain almost always does not belong to the company that created the format; such a company should not be able to hold the data prisoner because only they can access the format.
  • I think there are two issues here. One is making the format descriptions publicly available. Another is forbidding other people from writing programs that are able to read and/or write those formats.

    If a format is still evolving, it's understandable that the people who created it don't want to deal with files written by other programs, that might do things that are "in spec" but that their "official" program still doesn't cope with very well (ex., images that are too large, etc.).

    So they don't make the file format publicly available. But chances are, some people will be able to understand it even without any documentation. And in most situations they'll be able to read and write those files without using any of the original code, so copyrighting the code isn't enough. To make sure they don't have to deal with files generated by "unofficial" 3rd party software, the only solution is to copyright the format itself.

    But (except for very specific cases, involving encryption) I don't see what harm comes to the original authors from people making programs that are able to read it. If something goes wrong with one of these programs (because the authors changed the format, for example), it's not their problem.

    RMN
    ~~~

  • File formats are already unprotected (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brett Glass ( 98525 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @03:47PM (#3627421) Homepage
    The author of the article appears to be unclear on intellectual property concepts. It has long been established that items that are "utilitarian" -- such as printed forms -- cannot be copyrighted. File formats are also utilitarian, and likewise cannot be copyrighted. This is why Microsoft has never filed suit against any company that has created a program which reads or writes its file formats.

    It's possible for patents to cover certain algorithms required by a file format. GIF files, for example, use LZW encryption, which was patented by Sperry-Univac. But this patent really was not on the file format itself, which was trivial. Rather, it covered a process used to compress data. The specification for the file format just happened to require that the data be compressed via that process. (Had it allowed different compression methods, as does TIFF, the patent wouldn't have been an issue.) When the unknown CompuServe programmer who created the GIF format wrote the original specification, he probably would have chosen a different compression algorithm if he had realized that the patented algorithm would cause so many problems both for CompuServe and for its users. Alas, like many programmers, he was concerned with results, not with legal or business issues. By the time Sperry-Univac (which by then had become Unisys) became litigious and began to enforce the patent, the standard was ubiquitous. But, again, the problem here was caused not by the nature of the file format but by the algorithm used to prepare data for storage and transmission in that format.

    The only situation I know of in which a company has attempted to patent the file format itself is when Coda Music Software patented certain aspects of the file formats used by its music software. No one knows whether these patents were very strong, because there was never a test case. Coda's software never dominated the market, and so competitors did not find a compelling need to support their file formats. The patent was never challenged, so we can only speculate as to its strength.

  • First off, I think trying to make companies give up proprietary file formats is stupid, and a violation of free enterprise. Those "standards" are trade secrets, and in my opinion, forcing companies to give away trade secrets of any sort is a horrible precedent.

    Second, what makes you think these companies even have a genuine specification of the format? They may have laid it out, but chances are that a few parts of the spec were tweaked while debugging. While those alterations may (hopefully) be internally consistent, trying to code from the spec would be a huge waste of time. The only way to guarantee true interoperability would be to have a copy of the program's source code.

    Finally, I've heard a lot of talk about the files being "your data, you should own and control it, and you shouldn't be beholden to a software license". I think this is more of a problem with the intellectual property system today, where you can own a software package, but you can't really OWN it.

    If you buy a piece of software and don't like their proprietary file format, reverse engineer it. If you're worried about the integrity of your data, export it.
  • Well, it was seriously slashdotted for me, but I've been doing some thinking on the subject too. I once posted something to /. long ago too, but got rejected.

    I posted something similar to shouldexist.org [shouldexist.org] back then too. Just to share the thoughts.

  • Some practical advice for corporate peons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Sunday June 02, 2002 @06:29PM (#3627948) Homepage

    Do what I've done. Install OpenOffice 1.0 [openoffice.org] on your corporate machine. Set it to save in Microsoft file formats by default (I know, but bear with me). Use it to create, read and write Microsoft Office files for a couple of months. Invite your coworkers to use it. See if they even notice that it's not Microsoft Office. Document everything you do with it.

    When you have a big healthy list of Microsoft format files that you've touched with it, confront your IS department and demand to know why they are wasting money on Microsoft Office. Tell them that you've already removed it from your machine (that's a $300 saving to the company right there) with - demonstrably - no effect on your or anyone else's productivity. CC people in accounting or cost control. Invite them to try it, to inspect the files (using Microsoft Office, naturally) and to ask your coworkers what they think of it. Request a specific answer about why it can't be used across the enterprise, or at least trialled on a larger scale, in parallel with the existing Microsoft Office if need be. If they bitch that it's unsupported, suggest that they pay for StarOffice. If they whine that it's not guaranteed to create usable Microsoft binary format files, point out that it is creating them, and that Microsoft Office doesn't guarantee it either!

    That's step 1, and it's a big step: get your company using Star/OpenOffice. Don't even bring up the issue of file formats until you've achieved this (I made that mistake). This might take years. It might never happen, because your IS guys are idiots or cowards working on the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" principle. But try for it.

    Once you've got everyone using Star/OpenOffice then you can launch stage two. Switch to creating documents in the default XML format. Any Microsoft binary format documents that you touch as part of your normal work should be saved as XML. Make a nice big list of all the documents that you've changed, because (this is the good bit) nobody else should even notice. Then after a few months, back you go to IS with your list, and demand to know why everyone else is still using Microsoft binary formats as the default. At this point there simply no reason to stick with them. Point out that a default Star/OpenOffice document (zipped XML) is significantly smaller than the Microsoft binary equivelant, which should keep the beancounters happy. And that should they ever go back to a proprietary suite (gods forbid) that it's far easier to convert from XML to anything than from Microsoft binaries to anything.

    It will be a long and painful process, but OpenOffice 1.0 and StarOffice 6.0 have made it possible to start it now. If you haven't tried these products, do so now. It's your first step into a larger universe. ;-)

  • Seems to be slashdotted... Mirrors/cached copies anyone?

  • My data, my format (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GrouchoMarx ( 153170 ) on Monday June 03, 2002 @03:38AM (#3629585) Homepage
    Frankly, I don't care if the program executable is Open Source, Free, or Commercial. But I want the file format to be open, documented, and for there to be nothing stopping me from writing a program of my own to manipulate that format without paying a dime to anyone.

    Why? It's my forking data! I wrote this paper, not Microsoft/Sun/whoever. This is my image, not Adobe's, Microsoft's, Quark's, or whoever. It's my intellectual property. I do not want to be bound to one company to access MY OWN STUFF. Imagine if to open the door to your own house, you needed a key from a company that went out of business. If you ever break the key, if the company isn't selling that key anymore, tough. You can't get into your house. (And calling a locksmith to "reverse engineer" the lock is violating the builder's intellectual property on their lock design.)

    So should there be a time limit on propretary file formats? Yes. The day the program is released, I want full documentation of the format available for free and an agreement that I can't be sued for using the documentation. It's my data, not the company's and I do not want to be locked to that one company for MY data. If I choose to edit the file with a commercial, closed source program, that is my choice. If I choose to edit the file with a Free Software program, so be it. I should never, ever be beholden to a 3rd party for my own intellectual property.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close