BREAKING NEWS 1: download S&Tn 2

Today's 2stnews080521 no.2 Science & Tehnology newsletter, focusing on Yahoo and IPRs.

AS ALWAYS IN STN: A LOT OF APPLE PUBLISHING, AND ALL THE STORY IN TWO PAGES: WE ARE ALMOST COMPETITIVE WITH BREAKINGVIEWS THAT SAY IT (AND EVEN MORE) IN ONE PAGE

RELATED BREAKING NEWS 2 and 3:

2. MSFT WANTS TO BUY FACEBOOK AND MERGE IT WITH YAHOO (SEARCH ONLY)? Read, comment scobleizer.com on WordPress.

OBJECTIONS and ALTERNATIVES from a  number of blog posts in TechCrunch (we read hundreds of pages, and found them by far best value, together with breakingviews sempre primo della classe). Our synthesis:

FAQ 1. If the strategy is Facebook, to make it a sort of "gated community" (Robert Scoble's alarming hypothesis), then what for Yahoo? Only Panama costs $20 bn (Citigroup estimate) 

FAQ 2. If MSFT now focuses Life Search Cashback, what for:

a) Facebook? Certainly not for above $10 bn;

b) Panama? You just buy Yahoo Asia and  the ad search business, without the software, because you desperately need CRITICAL MASS.

3. Wednesday 21, A BIG EVENT OR NOT? INTERESTING!

After years of passive innovation, is Microsoft about to  break in search technology and its business model?

"The big news this week may actually be Microsoft’s upcoming announcement at Advance08. (...) I’ll be at the event and live blogging, so stay tuned." Michael Arrington at Techcrunch.com

I know it wasn't nice, but I asked Google Search about  "Life Search Cashback", it gave me all the list (people blogging from the Advance08 Conference today) but also asked me whether I actually meant "Life Search cash back" (I wanted to tell him, but not yet interactive: "sorry Engine, I understand you know the dictionary and you'll learn more: but I was right").

MORE  IN OUR ST Newsletter no.2: 2stnews080521 

WHO'S AFRAID OF (an independent) YAHOOLF?

NOBODY. It just happened: it was taken in between Microsoft and Google, in their global wars 1.0  - january 31 to may 15 2008 - and 1.1 (now). Google won the first run, but now it's different.

April ‘o8 search shares:  62% GOOG, 17.5% YHOO, 9.7% MSN (MSFT), 4.3% AOL, 2.1% Ask.com (Nielsen data).

Users april '08: 128 million G., 122m M., 117m Y., 105.5m Time Warner (AOL). Nielsen data.

US Searches same month - source Hitwise: 67.90% G, 20.28% Y, 6.26& M, 4.17% ask.com. MSN loosing ground from March to April, according to Hitwise.

1Q08 (4Q07) spending by US search advertisers: 70.4% (74.5%) G., 24.2% (19.6%) Y., 5.4% (5.9%) M. (NYT from SearchIgnite). Yahoo eroding Google's share, according to this source.

कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम को पेटेंट कराने के विषय में भी सबसे विवादास्पद बात है कि क्या कंप्यूटर के द्वारा व्यापार करने के तरीके को क्या पेटेंट कराया जा सकता है? मैंने क्या अमेरिका में कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम के संबन्ध में पेटेंट का कानून बदलेगा की चिट्ठी पर बताया था कि अमेरिका में उलझन क्यों शुरू हुई और क्या वहां पर कानून बदलेगा। इंगलैंड में कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम के संबन्ध में, पेटेंट के कानून में एक निर्णय के द्वारा कुछ बदलाव आया है। आज इसी की चर्चा है।

यूरोपियन पेटें‍ट कनवेशंन १९७३ (ई.पी.सी.) का अनुच्छेद ५२(२) कहता है कि मानसिक कार्य करने की प्रक्रिया, खेल खेलने के तरीके, व्यापार तरीके, और कं‍प्यूटर प्रोग्राम आविष्कार नहीं माने जायेगें। यानी कि, कं‍प्यूटर प्रोग्राम और व्यापार तरीकों को पेटेंट नहीं किया जा सकता। यही ई.पी.सी. के सदस्य देशों का भी कानून है। किन्तु व्यवहार में, यह नियम बदल गया है। यूरोप के देशों में इस बारे के कानून में विरोधाभास है। कुछ देश, यदि आवेदन पत्र - कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम या व्यापार के तरीकों की जगह - तकनीकी में बढ़ोत्तरी की तरह प्रस्तुत किये जांय तो उस पर पेटेंट दे रहे हैं पर इंगलैंड में ऐसा नहीं हो रहा था था वे सारे आवेदन पत्रों को खारिज कर रहे थे।

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) (यू.के.आई.पी.ओ.) के समक्ष पेटेंट करवाने के लिये छः आवेदन पत्र दिये गये। इन सब में किसी भी कार्य को करने के लिये कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम की सहायता ली जा रही है यह सारे आवेदन यू.के.आई.पी.ओ. ने इस बात पत खारिज कर दिये कि यूरोपियन पेटें‍ट कनवेशंन १९७३ (ई.पी.सी.) के अनुच्छेद ५२ के अन्दर यह पेटेंट नहीं किये जा सकते। इसके विरुद्ध अपील प्रस्तुत की गयी। जो कि In re Astron Clinica {(२००८) EWHC ८५ (Pat); २००८ WLR (D) १२} मुकदमें २८ फरवरी २००८ को स्वीकार कर ली गयी। न्यायालय का कहना है कि,

'[C]laims to computer programs are not necessarily excluded by Article 52. In a case where claims to a method performed by running a suitably programmed computer or to a computer programmed to carry out the method are allowable, then, in principle, a claim to the program itself should also be allowable.'
यदि प्रोग्रामड् किये गये किसी कंप्यूटर पर किसी तरीके के लिये पेटेंट दिये जा सकते हैं तब सिद्धान्तः उस प्रोग्राम के लिये भी दिये जा सकते हैं।

इस निर्णय के कारण, अब कंप्यूटर प्रग्राम के लिये आवेदन पत्र केवल इस बात पर खारिज नहीं किये जा सकते हैं कि वे यूरोपियन पेटें‍ट कनवेशंन १९७३ (ई.पी.सी.) के अनुच्छेद ५२ से बाधित हैं।

(सुनने के लिये चिन्ह शीर्षक के बाद लगे चिन्ह ► पर चटका लगायें यह आपको इस फाइल के पेज पर ले जायगा। उसके बाद जहां Download और उसके बाद फाइल का नाम अंग्रेजी में लिखा है वहां चटका लगायें।: Click on the symbol ► after the heading. This will take you to the page where file is. Click where ‘Download’ and there after name of the file is written.)

• अंतरजाल की माया नगरी की अन्तिम कड़ी: वेबसाईट पर विडियो और गाने अपलोड करने के कारण कॉपीराइट का उल्लंघन ►
• द डबल हेलिक्स की पुस्तक समीक्षा ►

यह ऑडियो फइलें ogg फॉरमैट में है। इस फॉरमैट की फाईलों को आप -

• Windows पर कम से कम Audacity, MPlayer, VLC media player, एवं Winamp में;
• Mac-OX पर कम से कम Audacity, Mplayer एवं VLC में; और
• Linux पर सभी प्रोग्रामो में - सुन सकते हैं।

बताये गये चिन्ह पर चटका लगायें या फिर डाउनलोड कर ऊपर बताये प्रोग्राम में सुने या इन प्रोग्रामों मे से किसी एक को अपने कंप्यूटर में डिफॉल्ट में कर ले।

सांकेतित शब्द

Internet, technology, Science, सूचना प्रद्योगिकी, सॉफ्टवेयर, सॉफ्टवेर, सॉफ्टवेर, सौफ्टवेर, आईटी, अन्तर्जाल, इंटरनेट, इंटरनेट, टेक्नॉलोजी, टैक्नोलोजी, तकनीक, तकनीक, तकनीकी,

Raportul Complet.

Tarile monitorizate :

Monitorizare prioritara

China,Rusia,Argentina,Chile,India,Israel,
Pakistan,Thailanda,Venezuela,

Monitorizare

Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia,
Brazilia, Canada, Cehia, Columbia, CostaRica, Ecuador, Egipt, Grecia,
Ungaria, Indonezia, Italia, Jamaica, Kuweit, Liban,
Malayesia, Mexic, Norvegia, Filipine, Polonia,
Romania, ArabiaSaudita,
Spania,Taivan,Tadjikistan,Turcia,
Turkmenistan, Ucraina, Uzbekistan,
Vietnam, Republica Dominicana, Guatemala,
Peru.

I'm not sure why she got a patent for the design but if she did, she's entitled to protect it.

But seriously, why is a bra with more hooks than normal patentable? Don't see too much novelty or innovation there. Or perhaps I'm just missing the point -- I haven't see the bra itself.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article3799389.ece

I’m not sure I agree that what Ms Rowling is asking for is entirely legal or fair with reference to the RDR case; to my mind she’s really stretching copyright protection. That being said, I think that this case could go either way both on facts and on law.

I don't see copyright as a moral right at all -- I see it as a legal right which has some moral rights attached to it viz. those of integrity and paternity and, in this instance, neither of those moral rights appear to have been violated.

Somehow, I suspect that this case needs to be turned into an emotive issue for her to win: I'm pretty certain that that's why she's gone on the stand calling her books her children although, if I’m to be honest, I’d have to admit that my lack of sympathy could have something to do with the fact that I’m not a huge fan of extending copyright protection beyond a point or, for that matter, of Harry Potter.

The books somehow didn’t strike much of a chord with me; I identify with Harold Bloom’s description of reading Harry Potter:

“I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by clichés and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.” [1]

Also, if it comes down to derivation, Ms Rowling’s books are pretty much a patchwork of older stories involving magic. As A.S. Byatt put it:

“Auden and Tolkien wrote about the skills of inventing “secondary worlds.” Ms. Rowling’s world is a secondary secondary world, made up of intelligently patchworked derivative motifs from all sorts of children’s literature — from the jolly hockey-sticks school story to Roald Dahl, from “Star Wars” to Diana Wynne Jones and Susan Cooper. Toni Morrison pointed out that clichés endure because they represent truths. Derivative narrative clichés work with children because they are comfortingly recognizable and immediately available to the child’s own power of fantasizing.
…
But in the case of the great children’s writers of the recent past, there was a compensating seriousness. There was — and is — a real sense of mystery, powerful forces, dangerous creatures in dark forests. Susan Cooper’s teenage wizard discovers his magic powers and discovers simultaneously that he is in a cosmic battle between good and evil forces. Every bush and cloud glitters with secret significance. Alan Garner peoples real landscapes with malign, inhuman elvish beings that hunt humans.
Reading writers like these, we feel we are being put back in touch with earlier parts of our culture, when supernatural and inhuman creatures — from whom we thought we learned our sense of good and evil — inhabited a world we did not feel we controlled. If we regress, we regress to a lost sense of significance we mourn for. Ursula K. Le Guin’s wizards inhabit an anthropologically coherent world where magic really does act as a force. Ms. Rowling’s magic wood has nothing in common with these lost worlds. It is small, and on the school grounds, and dangerous only because she says it is.” [2]

I'm unconvinced that Ms Rowling has the right she's claimed or that less well known authors would benefit by her being able to 'protect' her work in this way.

Links:
[1] boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers
[2] A.S. Byatt, ‘Harry Potter and the Childish Adult’, New York Times, 7 July 2003 (subscription needed) through ‘The Legal Soapbox’

...

2. You’ll lose ebook revenues. If people buy my ebook and then distribute it to 20 people, and each of those distributes it to 20 more, and those to 20 more … I’ve lost $76,000 in ebook revenues. Perhaps. That’s if you agree with the assumption that all those people would have bought the ebook if it hadn’t been freely distributed. I don’t buy that. In this example, thousands of people are reading my work (and learning about Zen Habits) who wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s good for any content creator.

3. Who knows what people will do with your work? Someone could take my work, turn it into a piece of … baloney … and put my name on it. They could translate it with all kinds of errors. They could … well, they could do just about anything. But that kind of thinking stems from a mind that wants to control content … while I am of the opinion that you can’t control it, and even if you can, it’s not a good thing. What if someone takes my work and turns it into something brilliant, and becomes the next James Joyce? Or more likely, what if they take the work and extend the concepts and make it even more useful, to even more people? Release control, and see what happens. People are wonderful, creative creatures. Let’s see what they can do.

The entire notice is available at 'Open Source Blogging: Feel Free to Steal My Content'

Samtidig rapporterer Campus Technology at Georgia State University er saksøkt av Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications og the Association of American Publishers (AAP), for urettmessig å ha lagt ut eller lenket til digitale kopier av læremateriell i universitetets digitale læringsplattform (Blackboard), åpne nettsider, og i pensumlister. Både IT-sjefen og sjefsbibliotekaren er anklaget for lovbrudd.

• The British Library Business & IP Centre has developed an interactive online information resource to help individuals and small companies teach themselves the essentials of intellectual property.   Intellectual Property - How to Protect and Develop Your Idea is designed "to give users the confidence to learn the IP fundamentals that no-one setting up a business or launching an innovation can afford to ignore". The website incorporates much of the invaluable information provided by the British Library and brings it to the fingertips of budding entrepreneurs and innovators based anywhere in the UK or the world.

• The UK Intellectual Property Office has launched a new online Patents Journal service for published patents data, allowing users to search and download published patent information, on-line, free of charge.  The database offers a range of search options as well as providing automatic links to the Patents Register and published documents.

 [Reminder:  JISC Podcast on IPR issues faced by Web 2.0 users in education]

Ms Rowling plans to testify in the case of Warner Bros. Entertainment and J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books where the author and Warner Bros. are trying to prevent a small publisher from publishing 'The Harry Potter Lexicon'.

The case hinges on fair use and where fair use becomes copyright infringement. Under the law, 'in determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.'

A few issues come to mind when one thinks of this:
1. Can content which accompanies some other work and which has been published online and endorsed by the copyright holder of that other work subsequently be accused of violating copyright simply because the author of the second work plans to publish it in a more traditional manner?
2. What is the relationship between an online work available to readers without charge and a book sold to readers both of which contain the same material?
3. Can a copyright holder actually stop the publication of a companion work considering that the copyright in the original work does not extend to preventing the publication of companion works? Can a copyright holder legitimately claim that their work has merely been repackaged? And can that claim be made after the work has already been endorsed by the copyright holder?

The New York Times [1] says that 'though the case pits a billionaire author against a tiny publishing house, the Potter fan base seems to have little sympathy for RDR' although in an earlier article, [2] it described Ms Rowling as a copyright hog. I find that surprising considering that most Harry Potter fan sites exist in part due to the right of fair use. And I'm not sure if such a work in which an author has put a substantial amount of effort into can infringe a copyright simply because it's not a available at no cost to readers.

Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/books/14potter.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=960332b363f2f96c&ex=1365912000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09nocera.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all

कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम पेटेंट कराने के बारे में अलग-अलग देशों के नियम भी भिन्न हैं। यह पेटेंट विषय में, सबसे विवादास्पद विषय है और इसमें सबसे विवादास्पद है कि क्या कंप्यूटर के द्वारा व्यापार करने के तरीके को क्या पेटेंट कराया जा सकता है, यदि हां तो कब? यह सारा विवाद शुरु हुआ है अमेरिकी अपीली न्यायालय के द्वारा स्टेट स्ट्रीट केस (State Stree Bank vs Signature Finencial Group 149 F3d ,1352) केस में दिये गये फैसले के कारण। इसमें न्यायालय ने कहा कि,

'कोई प्रक्रिया पेटेंट करने योग्य है या नहीं, यह इस पर नहीं तय होना चाहिए कि प्रक्रिया व्यापार करती है पर यह देखना चाहिये कि, पेटेंट की जाने वाली प्रक्रिया एक उपयोगी तरीके से प्रयोग की जा रही है अथवा नहीं।'

इसके बाद अमेरिका में व्यापार के तरीकों के के लिए दिये पेटेंटों की बाढ़ सी आ गयी। इसके कुछ उदाहरण है :

• सामान खरीदने की स्वीकृत देने के लिये एक क्लिक का प्रयोग करना (मैंने आपको अपनी चिट्ठी 'एक अकेला भी बहुत कुछ कर सकता है' में बताया है कि कैसे एक व्यक्ति ने एक क्लिक का प्रयोग करने के पेटेंट को कुछ हद तक रद्द करवाया है);
• लेखा लिखने की एक आन-लाइन पद्धति;
• आन-लाइन पारिश्रमिक प्रोत्साहन पद्धति;
• आन-लाइन बारम्बार क्रेता कार्यक्रम; और
• उपभोक्ता को अपने दिये गये दाम पर सर्विस की सूचना प्राप्त करने की सुविधा।

लेकिन, शायद यह अब बदल जाय।

१ अक्टूबर २००७ को, 'In re Bilski case', में अमेरिका की अपीली न्यायालय ने यह सवाल उठाया है

बिलस्कि के मुकदमे में, बहस और निर्णय का बेसब्री से इंतजार है

कि क्या स्टेट स्ट्रीट केस केस ठीक से निर्णीत हुआ अथवा नहीं। अपीली न्यायालय, इस सवाल को, अन्य चार सवालों के साथ, एक बड़ी पीठ के समक्ष पुनः अगले माह सुनेंगे। ऐसा हो सकता है कि न्यायालय इस बार दूसरा रुख अपनाये। यदि ऐसा होता है तो कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम के संबन्ध में, पेटेंट का कानून ही बदल जायगा। इस मुकदमें में लोग न्यायालय के मित्र की तरह बहस (यहां और यहां देखें) दाखिल कर रहे हैं। इस मुकदमे में बहस और निर्णय का बेसब्री से इंतजार है।

इंगलैंड में कंप्यूटर प्रोग्राम के संबन्ध में, पेटेंट के कानून में एक निर्णय के द्वारा कुछ बदलाव आया है यह अगली बार।

(सुनने के लिये चिन्ह शीर्षक के बाद लगे चिन्ह ► पर चटका लगायें यह आपको इस फाइल के पेज पर ले जायगा। उसके बाद जहां Download और उसके बाद फाइल का नाम अंग्रेजी में लिखा है वहां चटका लगायें।: Click on the symbol ► after the heading. This will take you to the page where file is. Click where 'Download' and there after name of the file is written.)

• विज्ञान कहानियों के जनक जुले वर्न ►
• अंतरजाल की माया नगरी की नवीनतम कड़ी: ग्रॉकस्टर केस में अमेरिकी सुप्रीम कोर्ट का फैसला ►

यह ऑडियो फइलें ogg फॉरमैट में है। इस फॉरमैट की फाईलों को आप -

• Windows पर कम से कम Audacity, MPlayer, VLC media player, एवं Winamp में;
• Mac-OX पर कम से कम Audacity, Mplayer एवं VLC में; और
• Linux पर सभी प्रोग्रामो में - सुन सकते हैं।

बताये गये चिन्ह पर चटका लगायें या फिर डाउनलोड कर ऊपर बताये प्रोग्राम में सुने या इन प्रोग्रामों मे से किसी एक को अपने कंप्यूटर में डिफॉल्ट में कर ले।

सांकेतित शब्द

Internet, technology, Science, सूचना प्रद्योगिकी, सॉफ्टवेयर, सॉफ्टवेर, सॉफ्टवेर, सौफ्टवेर, आईटी, अन्तर्जाल, इंटरनेट, इंटरनेट, टेक्नॉलोजी, टैक्नोलोजी, तकनीक, तकनीक, तकनीकी,

Betydningen for dommene og bøtene mot Desire2Learn, er ikke klar. Heller ikke om patentavgjørelsen blir stående.

Many times when Nokia members like myself try to discuss further on open source involvement the argument on software patents comes back. For instance, in my last blog post about Connecting open source and mobile users - the Nokia plan. There are many good comments about patents in the thread. One puts it in the classical accusation:

> Why are Nokia’s representatives lobbying for software patents in the European
> Union and in various other locations?

If you care about the topic you can help by providing more precision and data in the accusation and the demands: Is Nokia really lobbying for software patents nowadays? Which countries are we talking about apart from the EU? What does "lobbying" exactly mean? What would you find reasonable about Nokia dealing with software patents?

A FFII report made four years ago seems to be the source of the complaints, but what was that action and where it stands today? Are there more original sources to look at? Searching the Internet most of the stuff seems to be echoes and opinions resonating each other and sometimes linking to the original FFII source.

All this is what I'm investigating these days. I'm no expert in the topic but I'm familiar with the No Software Patents campaign, I know some of the colleagues involved in Intellectual Property at Nokia and I have this journalist background so helpful sometimes. After a first round I'm quite optimistic seeing progress on this issue only by communicating more and better what is Nokia actually thinking and doing about software patents.

Some basic hints about the topic I found interesting to learn about:

• There are traditional patents on engineering inventions (i.e. hardware) that are out of question in the No Software Patents discussion. Then there are purely software patents - the matter discussed. But there are also patents on software-interacting-with-hardware which in the case of Nokia, a company shipping devices with software inside, are very relevant. The boundaries between these boxes are not always clear.
• Nokia is patenting software, just like the rest of its direct competitors do. Software patents do exist at least in the United States and not following that game can be so expensive (companies shipping patented features have to pay the owners of the patents) to rule you practically out of the market. The patent game might bring you to court and probably to huge indemnifications... probably not if you are a free software developer hacking for fun but surely if you are a wealthy company with successful products sold in boxes in the market. Search for patent litigation in the IT industries (many of the big companies you know have been to court because of this) and you will see the numbers.
• There are basically two attitudes for a company when playing the patent game: preventive and aggressive. Preventive means that you patent in order to make your own products getting some advantage and being well positioned when it comes to make compensation roundups with your competitors. Aggressive means that you use patents as a primary mean to damage competitors or even make a business around patent pledges. Nokia plays preventive, and specially when it comes to deal with the open source community the strategy is not to be aggressive at all. There was this formal precedent: Nokia announces patent support to the Linux Kernel. Beyond press releases, the respect about the achievements of open source development is part of our daily work (contributing Nokia to this open source success as well).

Let's move forward in this debate. No need to campaign or flames: good arguments are enough. I'm also happy facilitating the contact between the organizations working against software patents and the right people at Nokia. I'm sure already today there are less discrepancies than most people think, and any exchange will be fruitful.

Image by takomabibelot (some rights reserved).

LIVE METAL CLUB
(Bd. N. Titulescu nr. 171, sector 1, Bucuresti)

Siguranta evenimentului: DSS Security
Sonorizare: Blackbeers Sound

Mijloace de transport: tramvai 34, troleibuze 65, 86, 97, autobuze 105, 634, 282  (statia N. Titulescu)

Metrou - statia Basarab.

Who will be the next to read this article: Intellectual Property Rights?

“Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) were originally instituted to encourage the creation and invention of public goods for the benefit of society by allowing creators and inventors to protect their intellectual property. However, IPR has become overly restrictive in recent times as corporate interests have led to an ever increasing demand for lock-down on rights.

The Shuttleworth Foundation supports initiatives that call for the establishment of national and global IPR regimes that seek an appropriate balance between encouraging innovation and benefiting society, the original purpose of creating the rights."

This month's highlights:

In a courageous and hugely impressive move, the Minister for the Public Service and Administration Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi set the Minimum Interoperability Standards for Information Systems (MIOS) in government, which will mean a move to Open Source Software. We believe that the implementation of this standard will greatly enhance interoperability and document management.

We are actively campaigning against Microsoft's proposed OOXML standard and believe that the ODF, being a current and working standard needs to be maintained. ODF essentially means that no matter what document writing software you use, the actual content will not be lost over time by interoperability issues. South Africa voted in opposition to the proposed standard in September, and we are now in an appeal process.

We enabled Nnenna Nwakanma from FOSSFA to attend the ISO ballot resolution meeting on OOXML in Geneva as part of the CODINORM, the Standards Board of Cote d'Ivoire, delegation. She has been fantastic in helping us understand the African debate and see where the pressure points with other African nations are. Nnenna's preliminary feedback has been that the meeting did not cover nearly all of the discussion points on the table and that there is a great deal to be done in sharing information between vote-entitled African countries in the 30 days before the final vote is due. She is leading a group discussion and initiatives on this.

Andrew Rens participated in an interview debate for Brainstorm Magazine with Microsoft representative David Ives on OOXML and open standards. The interview will be published in the April edition of Brainstorm.