As three XML based office format standards are now in competition, the criteria in judging what is open standards should be discussed.
The confusion of Open Standard concept will do harm to the selection of standards, especially in the way of more efficient to the economy and more convenient to the customers. So if one standards has high royalty which should be paid for the interoperation, or has restriction in implementation, we can say it does not meet the bottomline of open standard.
If we say the standards should come from Open Community with Open Process, we care more on the standards itself. Because a standard with high quality and non-obstacle IPR and adaption policy are what the value is.
Here is Microsoft Covenant Regarding Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas
Microsoft irrevocably covenants that it will not seek to enforce any of its patent claims necessary to conform to the technical specifications for the Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas posted at http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/xmloffice/default.aspx (the “Specifications”) against those conforming parts of software products. This covenant shall not apply with respect to any person or entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce a patent right or rights against Microsoft or any of its affiliates relating to any conforming implementation of the Specifications.
This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsoft's issued patent claims cover a conforming implementation of the Specifications or are enforceable, or (ii) that such an implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
No other rights except those expressly stated in this covenant shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise. In particular, no rights in the Microsoft Office product, including its features and capabilities, are hereby granted except as expressly set forth in the Specifications.
(1)微软的授权声明仅在微软的网站上，而不是在ECMA的网站上，这可能导致对于声明稳定性的顾虑；
(2)微软是否对于其格式的完整性有所保留，从而提高相对于竞争者的竞争能力；
(3)声明应当包括以后所有版本的授权，特别是在ECMA接收成为标准，或者成为国际标准之后；
(4)声明说明仅仅授权那些为了实现而必须采用的专利技术，如何定义这些技术如何确定呢？
(5)作为一份“互不侵犯”的授权协议，任何为了此标准实施的专利，都可以通过此声明获得法律权利，而本声明只是赋予微软及其相关实体受侵权时才可以使用；
Here is Sun Covenant Regarding OASIS ODF
Sun irrevocably covenants that, subject solely to the reciprocity requirement described below, it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation, as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant (or commit to grant) patent licenses or make equivalent non-assertion covenants. Notwithstanding the commitment above, Sun's covenant shall not apply and Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation.
This statement is not an assurance either (i) that any of Sun's issued patents cover an OpenDocument Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) that an OpenDocument Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party.
No other rights except those expressly stated in this Patent Statement shall be deemed granted, waived, or received by implication, or estoppel, or otherwise. Similarly, nothing in this statement is intended to relieve Sun of its obligations, if any, under the applicable rules of OASIS.
(1)Sun Microsystems没有隐藏知识产权的嫌疑；
(2)发表在OASIS网站上，并且对所有后续版本适用；
(3)Sun Microsystems在尽力保证ODF不受知识产权诉讼的困扰；
(4)不仅如此，Sun Microsystems还受到OASIS成员协议的限制。
So, what is IPR policy of Chinese UOF?
