IMHO, the naming of this category as "Open formats closed by software patents" is highly POV. It seems to promote a particular definition of "open" and "closed" and a particular perspective regarding patents that appears to fit with someone's personal agenda but that are far from universally held understandings of what these terms mean. In fact, I see no actual purpose to the creation of the category other than the desire to promote that point of view. The intent appears to be to label anything that is rumored to have patents that apply to it as being "closed". The intent also appears to be to say that some formats were formerly "open" before some evil patent assertion happened to them. But "open" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, and certainly there are many people who would not consider something "closed" just because someone has a patent on it. And the fact that there might be patents that applied to some of these formats was never a surprise to anyone -- that was well understood and considered perfectly OK when some of these formats were created. (See, for example, the open standard page and the Talk:Open format page for a further discussion of the definition issue.) A more neutral, more accurate name would be something like "formats that may require patent licenses to use in some places", although I doubt anyone would be very interested in maintaining a category with that name. -Mulligatawny (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
