GeekPAC

You can see the amended file here. According to that, it was amended on April 11. There are some semantic changes, such as replacing “open document software” with “use of approved open file format software.” Also changed is any reference to “Department of Technology Services.” That has been replaced with “State Chief Information Officer.”

The biggest change, however, is in Section 1 (a)(3):

(3) Fully and independently implemented by multiple software providers on multiple platforms without any intellectual property restrictions for necessary technology. An “intellectual property restriction” does not include a right retained by the holder of a patent or copyright to terminate a license or covenant with any person or entity that brings a claim of patent or copyright infringement against the holder.

This compares to the previous version:

(3) Implemented by multiple vendors.

From my non-lawyerly point-of-view, I can only see this as an attempt to clarify things, but I’m curious as to what prompted the change. Can anyone provide legal analysis?

EDIT: After some searching, I found this blog entry by Andy Updegrove. It shows that Texas uses similar language in its open format bill introduced earlier this year. The difference being that the changes outlined above seek to specifically define “intellectual property restriction.”

View the bill showing all changes here.