USPTO to add surcharge on non-DOCX patent applications in 2023

Re:USPTO to add surcharge on non-DOCX patent applications in... by meragrin_ on Friday August 26, 2022 @04:39PM (#32612489)

Sure it does. I'll give you it does not say why they chose it over other alternatives which I'm thinking is what you are looking for. Are there really any alternatives? The only real alternative I can think of is OpenDocument Format and I don't consider it alternative. As they say on that page, 80% of their users already deal with DOCX so 80+% of them will have to convert to ODF. I can't imagine ODF having any sort of benefit worth requiring most people to convert their documents before sending.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USPTO to add surcharge on non-DOCX patent applications in... by nescioquid on Friday August 26, 2022 @05:16PM (#32612859)

To me, the salient question is why is the government officially adopting a proprietary file format? Why is it important to optimize for the trivial convenience of patent applicants?

It seems more like rationalization than reason.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USPTO to add surcharge on non-DOCX patent applications in... by mordero on Friday August 26, 2022 @07:54PM (#32614116)

Isn't docx technically an open file format? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USPTO to add surcharge on non-DOCX patent applications in... by nescioquid on Friday August 26, 2022 @10:39PM (#32615089)

That's a standard for a file format, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a free/open format. I don't think the FSF, for instance, considers it open (maybe because of patent issues). I'll leave that for you to decide, but just mean to suggest a standard doesn't automatically mean free/open.

Interestingly, a section in the wiki article linked mentioned the standard proposal was controversial because ODF already existed (and ODF was considered less complicated as a specification).

Nevertheless, good point. It depends on what you mean by "open".

[ Parent | on HN ]