Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU's Anti-Trust Investigation of OOXML Continues

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the listening-for-the-sound-of-the-fat-lady dept.

Microsoft 111

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Since January, the EU has been investigating whether Microsoft broke anti-trust laws while advocating OOXML. That investigation continues following its passage as a standard. Meanwhile, the ISO approval of OOXML is being appealed, so Microsoft hasn't won just yet."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cramped comments (3, Interesting)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950456)

Am I the only one who is experiencing cramped comments? About 1/5 of the page is just a margin.

Re:Cramped comments (0, Offtopic)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950500)

nothi ng to see h ere m ove a long.

Re:Cramped comments (2, Funny)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950520)

I meant:

nothi
ng to
see h
ere m
ove a
long.

but forgot to switch formatting :x

Re:Cramped comments (0, Offtopic)

hendridm (302246) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950630)

I'm getting the cramped comments here with FFb5 also.

Re:Cramped comments (3, Funny)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950804)

That's OOXML for you.

You were warned - but no, you knew better. I have no sympa<formatLikeWord95> D'oh!

OT: Yeah, WTF's up with Slashdot today? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22951004)

Am I the only one who is experiencing cramped comments? About 1/5 of the page is just a margin.

It's even fuglier in Classic Mode [slashdot.org] . It's fugly in classic-threaded-mode, and utterly baffling [slashdot.org] in classic-flat-mode.

Whatever the Gods did, could they please undo it? The only bars I want to see are the single bars to the left of the blockquoted comments.

On a high-contrast color scheme (or even just turning document-specified colors off), it's even worse - the 3/4-box is thick and black around some comments, and absent on others, resulting in something extremely distracting.

It seems that all the complaints about the differences in style on idle.slashdot.org are going to have to be rehashed again.

Re:OT: Yeah, WTF's up with Slashdot today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22951774)

I much prefer this. Its a lot easier to see how the comments flow. With the old style, if you had hidden comments with replies to them, it was often difficult to see if the reply was to a hidden comment, or the post above a hidden comment. I much approve of the grey boxes around the comments and replies. please keep it.

Re:OT: Yeah, WTF's up with Slashdot today? (0, Offtopic)

fosterNutrition (953798) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954280)

On top of which, for some reason both this style and the atrocious crap that is "idle" both prevent Firefox from scrolling the page smoothly on my machine. Everything is horrible and jumpy and hard to follow. (Core duo, 1GB RAM, 2.6 kernel, Firefox 2.0.0.13)

Re:Cramped comments (0, Offtopic)

Joelfabulous (1045392) | more than 6 years ago | (#22955572)

Yeah, they changed the look and feel and functionality it seems. It's kind of off putting... I just noticed that this comment reply box is actually nested in the thread now as opposed to loading an entire new window. I guess the dynamic loading might be better for slashdot? But I have no idea. Strangely enough, the only thing I've found that I like about this new system is this embedded comment. Everything else looks glitzed up for the sake of a new coat of paint, and not functional to me. But to each their own, I suppose. And /. is free, so I guess I can't exactly pick and choose what I want out of a list of features. YMMV. Now where is the submit button... I see preview... Ah, preview then submit. Touche. Pretty slick, guys.

Re:Cramped comments (0, Offtopic)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957002)

I actually like the fact that they are putting the border around the comments that encloses the replies. It makes it easier to follow long threads where it sometimes becomes a pain to track back to a parent comment, especially when they all use the same subject line (e.g. Re:Cramped comments). The nested reply box is cool too :)

There does seem to be about a 1/2 inch margin around the comments though, and I'm not too wild about that. I think 1/8 inch or so would be sufficient.

Appeal? (5, Informative)

BACPro (206388) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950590)

After having RTFA (sorry), I don't see where anybody is appealing the decision, yet.

IBM issued a broad support statement so as to leave all doors open.

FSFE said this must not happen again...

Nobody issued a statement indicating an appeal had been filed.

Re:Appeal? (5, Informative)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950706)

Give it some time. The Groklaw article did state that there is a 2-month period for appeals to be filed.

Re:Appeal? (2, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950828)

The Groklaw article did state that there is a 2-month period for appeals to be filed.

Yes, but who has standing to file an appeal here? TFA says ISO national bodies. That would be a pretty difficult challenge to mount.

As with the Netscape use of the justice dept to go after Microsoft, I remain very unimpressed by companies that attempt to win commercial battles by involving government. Netscape did not help the anti-trust case against Microsoft, on the contrary, they caused the DoJ to abandon a strong case (on the pricing issue) into a weak one. Netscape's tactics against Spyglass were every bit as aggressive and anti-competitive as those they accused Microsoft of. Netscape was never a good player in the standards world either, they wanted absolute control of the Web. Their idea of standards participation was to fax a proposed 'standard' to W3C hours before they released the product.

The risk here is that the EU is going to look at this from a protectionist point of view. They have an opportunity to establish some non-tarrif trade barriers here and there is little opportunity for the US to complain.

Re:Appeal? (5, Insightful)

oliderid (710055) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951092)

The risk here is that the EU is going to look at this from a protectionist point of view. They have an opportunity to establish some non-tarrif trade barriers here and there is little opportunity for the US to complain.

European anti-competitive laws are mainly aimed at European countries/companies.

There are still strong protectionnist tendencies amongst european countries against each other.

For example, last week, the Italian state can't refund the nearly bankrupted Air Italia because of these laws. They are almost "forced" to sell it to Air France/KLM (privately held)

Anti-trust laws are also mainly aimed at European companies.

So basically the European union is the only body in Europe promoting/reinforcing free/fair trades. Its main mission is to guarantee fair play amongst its members. American companies having European acitivites experience it from time to time. Here on slashdot microsoft makes headlines.

I noticed few months ago that Novell (I think, anyway It was an American company with open source based services) won a mid sized European Commission contract against european companies. Adobe is well established in the European commissions and it is making a lot (really a lot) of money.

If you play fair, you are welcome. If you don't you get fines.That's quite simple really.

Re:Appeal? (-1, Troll)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951654)

Good perspective for people that only exist from the US side of things.

Microsoft holds an additional problem, as being an American company, the EU in general does not like the influence they have in the IT markets.

So the EU tries to shove MS around based on 'possible' outcomes and 'possible' non-EU activities more than they would a EU based company. And from this it becomes a economic political issue more than having anything directly to do with Microsoft other than the size of their influence.

Any non-EU based company with potential economic impact is going to be treated almost as harshly as Microsoft based on the scale of influence in their markets.

The EU hasn't actually proved that MS did anything wrong, and even with the N versions of Windows, MS fully complied even with their most outlandish requests, even government level source code access, which the US government should have stepped in and STOPPED to protect the American company from this level of handing over their internal corporate secrets.

I know it is fashionable to hate Microsoft on here, and even OOXML, but in reality MS isn't killing people in the streets of the EU and are forced to take tons of extra steps that are almost ridiculous at times.

Even the proponents of the competing OOXML standards for ISO certification don't oppose OOXML for ISO certification, and yet the SlashDot world acts like they are on the same side by hating OOXML.

Personally, until an open standard comes along that handles today's current document technologies we have NO CHOICE but OOXML. Right now any other standard would basterize content a lot of companies take for granted.

TabletPC is highly used in many markets, let's use medical institutions as an example, and they would be hit on the head, as all their stored INK content would be lost or converted to dead images.

And stuff like this is a major impact on a large sector of the Medical community, even though 99.9% of the people on SlashDot don't use or even realize that Ink technology is so widely used in many corporate markets. Any why the need for its preservation in documents is highly needed.

Anyone that has used Ink technology with a Wacom tablet or a TabletPC on Vista knows why it is going to grow even bigger, as the technology is dead on, being virtually 100% accurate even with Doctor's handwriting.

Go to YouTube and search for Vista TabletPC to see this in action if you think it is a joke technology like the Inking capables of OS X are. And XP TabletPC wasn't much behind Vista...

Then come back here and tell the world how much you hate OOXML even though your own personal medical records will be fubar if a non-INK format becomes standard.

Re:Appeal? (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951488)

Yes, but who has standing to file an appeal here? TFA says ISO national bodies.

Norway, Germany, Poland Romania and many others are reporting irregularities and stacking in their committees. The memo from Comes v Microsoft [groklaw.net] [pdf warning] describes pretty excatly what happened in those meetings.

A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed â" just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause.

Considerable poltiical influence was brought to bear too. Bill Gates campaigned in Denmark, where he is a friend of the Prime Minister. Sarkozy himself intervened [noooxml.org] on Microsoft's behalf in France.

This topic has started to expose just how much influence Microsoft has with governments, and shows they're willing to meddle with national sovereignty.

It's not going to take too much to turn it into a cause celebre.

Re:Appeal? (0, Flamebait)

MORB (793798) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951674)

Sarkozy himself intervened [noooxml.org] on Microsoft's behalf in France.
I'm not surprised that this little interventionist piece of shit had a hand in this.

I'm disgusted at the sheer stupidity of all those people who actually bought all his obvious bullshit and voted him in.

Re:Appeal? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22956398)

Norway, Germany, Poland Romania and many others are reporting irregularities and stacking in their committees. The memo from Comes v Microsoft [groklaw.net] [pdf warning] describes pretty excatly what happened in those meetings.
I've read so much fantasy about the Norway vote that I'm beginning to feel dirty that we are on the wrong side of the FUD machine. Yes the "committee" in Norway was stacked. As reported elsewhere it was stacked 80% in Microsofts disfavour. This was a free-to-join forum for input and discussion, and many with special interests on both sides did join just for this issue. But it didn't vote and never was supposed to (despite the "80% voted against" reporting on /.). After the discussion the decision was made by the employed management of the standard organisation. Some people didn't like the result and have created a lot of noise, but the wrong type, based on wrong facts. Even if we enjoy reveling in it, we shouldn't go there.

Re:Appeal? (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958086)

Considerable poltiical influence was brought to bear too. Bill Gates campaigned in Denmark, where he is a friend of the Prime Minister. Sarkozy himself intervened on Microsoft's behalf in France.

So? If I was a member of a national standards body and the Minister, Prime Minister or President called me up I would take it pretty seriously because they have a democratic mandate and I don't.

This is the flip side of trying to use the ISO process to legitimize ODF and delegitimize OOXML. The reason for this campaign was from start to finish to attempt to force governments to use ODF in place of OOXML and thus force the use of Open Office. Turns out that the governments don't really want the slashcrew making their IT purchasing decisions.

Re:Appeal? (4, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958756)

The reason for this campaign was from start to finish to attempt to force governments to use ODF in place of OOXML and thus force the use of Open Office.
No, I completely disagree with this. There is no reason that Microsoft Office can not support ODF, infact it already does with a plugin so why would this block or change governments from using Microsoft Office if they want to use it?

OOXML was really crap when it was first submitted and we all don't really know if that has changed much as the fixes haven't really been looked at in any detail. Hence why use a subpar format which is heavily based on Microsoft Office simply because Microsoft feels that it's a competition between Closed vs Open Source?

It's not a competition, this has nothing to do with Open Source, it's about a file format being implementable or not and about being realistic. The OOXML format ISO is never going to be used, even by Microsoft, that's just realistic expectation based on their past. What's going to happen is this... How Microsoft Office renders your exported files is going to determine the ISO format and thus nothing will actually be changed from today, where Microsoft gets to make the standard that everyone follows.

So, why is it such a bad thing to use ODF which isn't going to be heavily influenced like OOXML is by a single vendor? Although ODF was originally in Open Office implementations of ODF are so widespread in other office suites and Open Office's popularity is so small that there is no chance that Open Office could ever control the ODF spec like Microsoft could with OOXML.

Re:Appeal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22959760)

Microsoft is free to implement ODF support in their software, mandating ODF would not lock them out.

Re:Appeal? (1)

Taagehornet (984739) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958908)

Bill Gates campaigned in Denmark, where he is a friend of the Prime Minister.

WTF?!

Whoever gave you that idea? As far as I recall, Bill Gates has only met with the Danish Prime Minister once. That happened back in the days when the EU discussed software patents, and the tone was supposedly less than friendly: Gates tried to Blackmail Danish Government [slashdot.org]

Re:Appeal? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22956130)

Netscape was good with standards.
I wont hold it against them when they added their own little touches like and .
Although those two examples were horrible. ;)

red herring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22951192)

And as at least several on Groklaw will be able to point out, that his is a distraction. The apparent corruption, unethical acts, and abandonment of ISO procedure have no direct origin in the desktop beyond the mindshare that brings and the eagerness for various ministers to turn quisling or turn a blind eye.

Difficulty of Appealing (5, Informative)

Adaptux (1235736) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951142)

After having RTFA (sorry), I don't see where anybody is appealing the decision, yet.
The main problem with appealing is that at the ISO/IEC JTC1 level you cannot really file an appeal about the decision-making processes in the national standardization bodies. The reason for this is that the national standardization organizations are not branches of ISO. The power structure is the other way round: ISO is an international cartel of national standardization bodies.

You could try to appeal at the ISO/IEC JTC1 level based on the differences between what the ISO/IEC JTC1 directives [iso.org] say and how things were actually done. [jtc1sc34.org] I have written up an analysis in which I come to the conclusion that an appeal which is based only on this kind of discrepancies will not be successful. [adaptux.com]

What I suppose could be done with some chance of success is to file an antitrust lawsuit as well as an appeal and demand in the appeal that ISO/IEC shall defer to the result of the antitrust lawsuit. (Trying to get the standardization organization officials to decide the antitrust concerns themselves would not be a good idea IMO, since standardization organizations are really not equipped for resolving legal conflicts).

Re:Difficulty of Appealing (1)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958454)

I don't get it. What is the basis of an antitrust suit? Are you guys now advocating that submitting a format to ISO (which doesn't force anyone to use the standard), is an antitrust violation? This is absurd. Hell, just a few years ago you same guys were saying it was abuse of monopoly, and therefore an antitrust violation, to NOT submit Microsoft's file formats to standards bodies. Make up your minds.

Re:Difficulty of Appealing (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958768)

Please don't play dumb, you already know it's not what they did but, how they did it which everyone is complaining about.

Re:Appeal? (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951152)

Technically, all appeals have to wait until all the votes are officially announced for each country. That way people aren't filing appeals based on rumors. Also, the appeals process might require formal procedures like paperwork, affidavits, blood sacrifices, etc.

Re:Appeal? (1)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951664)

The appeals will happen.

If my A.D.D. short term memory problem doesn't get in the way, I recall that Norway voted 19 against and 5 for the passing, but they approved it anyway. This same irregularity also occurred in several other EU countries.

Visualize if you will, a shit load of people with their mouths hanging wide open, thinking, "WTF??? We all voted against that abortion, how the fuck did it pass???"

Yes, there will be appeals.

Re:Appeal? (3, Insightful)

arendjr (673589) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952086)

The problem though is the ones that need to appeal are the NB's, which are the same ones that also had the final say in the Yes votes.

Can't disagree I really hope there will be appeals as well.

Re:Appeal? (1)

MyOtherUIDis3digits (926429) | more than 6 years ago | (#22955536)

Visualize if you will, a shit load of people with their mouths hanging wide open, thinking, "WTF??? We all voted against that abortion, how the fuck did it pass???"

Kinda like the last two presidential elections here in the US.

The new EU economic plan (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22950646)

Get their money by fining Microsoft. Why waste time doing it the "old fashioned way" when you can simply extort the money from U.S. companies. Anti-Competitive behavior? What competition is there? Opera? Maybe europe should invent it's own OS and show us what we are missing.

Thanks, we have several (5, Funny)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950738)

There was this one started by some Finnish guy named torvalds that seems to have taken off pretty well. Some of our governments use it now.

Re:Thanks, we have several (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952148)

Yah, he really got good start, thanks GPL and GNU liberation what Stallman started. If GPL wouldn't be then, Linux could stay somewhere where Minix is still but GPL + GNU made it big hit! GPL is great thing because it keeps care that everyone is playing fair.

Re:The new EU economic plan (2, Insightful)

psysjal (1083969) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950764)

Wasn't Linus Torvalds from Finland? Doesn't that mean Europe can at least claim some responsibility for the Linux kernel?

Re:The new EU economic plan (4, Informative)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950802)

It is developed internationally and he lives in California now. And it is not owned and licenced by a corporation.

Re:The new EU economic plan (1)

Prefader (1072814) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950840)

Doesn't that mean Europe can at least claim some responsibility for the Linux kernel?


Sure. Just like Al Gore can claim responsibility for the internet.

Re:The new EU economic plan (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951290)

In other words - just as much as the USA can claim responsibility for Windows...

Re:The new EU economic plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22955100)

You are welcome to it.

I hope MS gets rebuffed harshly (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950746)

Standards are a major pillar of a modern technological society. Attempting (whether successfully or not) to sabotage the standardization process of a well-respected source of standards, amounts to attempting to destabilize society. This is clearly utterly unethical. The potential damage is inconceivable.

MS did this evil thing either because they do not care at all about anything except their short-term profits, or because they are scared out of their wits. In either case they need to be contained fast, before the world is without a credible (read: of high integrity and producing high quality syandards) standardization organisation.

Re:I hope MS gets rebuffed harshly (5, Insightful)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950862)

As several have commented on Slashdot before, MS also benefits from the discrediting of the ISO process in general. Then there are no "standards" just what MS makes, what MS wants, and no pesky people complaining about them not being standards compliant.

Re:I hope MS gets rebuffed harshly (5, Insightful)

gwait (179005) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952206)

Exactly. Microsoft have won this hands down.
Notice how the mainstream press are reporting Microsoft's OOXML ISO approval, without mentioning the dirty tricks (illegal or not) that they used to get it "approved".
So for Government programs that state that documents MUST be based on an open standard, Microsoft have won, and for anyone who mentions ODF is also an ISO standard, they can say "Who cares? ISO is a disorganized and easily corrupted organization, nothing they rubber stamp means anything!".

It's not at all surprising that Microsoft went after this whole hog, handcuffing customers to MS Office is the source of their income and power. All else (windows monopoly, etc) follows.

maybe if governments got smart... (2, Interesting)

Rob Y. (110975) | more than 6 years ago | (#22953828)

As it stands, the new OOXML 'standard' amounts to a mandate to upgrade to Office 2007 (yes, there's some kind of add-on for older versions, but most will just eat the upgrade). A nice win for MS.

It would be nice if Government mandates required that multiple, compatible implementations exist for whatever standards they mandate.

That might call Microsoft's bluff. Either they'd have to implement a working OOXML to ODF translator or help others implement OOXML and verify completeness.

Hell, by defining 'standard' in terms of actual multiple implementations, Office 2000 binary would make a better standard than OOXML. OOo does a pretty good job of reading them - better than anybody but MS is likely to do for OOXML anytime soon.

So, let's lobby for governments to just standdardize on ODF, PDF and Office 2000.

Of course, Abiword, KOffice and OOo would have to get cracking on making their ODF implementations compatible for ODF to make the cut.

Any guesses which job would be easier?

Re:I hope MS gets rebuffed harshly (2, Interesting)

kamochan (883582) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954856)

... handcuffing customers to MS Office is the source of their income and power. All else (windows monopoly, etc) follows.

<rant>Which just sucks golfballs. I recently installed Office 2008 for the Mac. Universal binaries and all, made me expect improvements. Silly me - what a stinking pile of dog poop! As slow as the f*cking runtime-translated powerpc-binary-2004, buggy to no end (ate several files already, while I'm on a hard deadline), the interface has been changed where it makes no sense (the templates etc drop-down section) - but unchanged where it should have been fixed (native scroll bars in most controls). ARRRGH!!

I actually tried to build OOo so that I could try to fix the handling of tables in headers/footers (which is the main show-stopper for our company for using OOo). Too bad the mac native version isn't up to snuff yet (in too many ways for someone to just quickly fix)./rant>

But one does have to hand it to Microsoft. Well played.

Re:I hope MS gets rebuffed harshly (2, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951332)

Standards are a major pillar of a modern technological society. Attempting (whether successfully or not) to sabotage the standardization process of a well-respected source of standards, amounts to attempting to destabilize society. This is clearly utterly unethical. The potential damage is inconceivable.

Some would label that as an act of terrorism.

Re: terrorism (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952530)

Some would label that as an act of terrorism.

No, no, you've got it all wrong. Terrorism is if someone ELSE does it. This is called US democracy, it's different. You get more people to suffer at once, and because it makes money for some it's OK.

Re: terrorism (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952648)

No, no, you've got it all wrong. Terrorism is if someone ELSE does it. This is called US democracy, it's different. You get more people to suffer at once, and because it makes money for some it's OK.
wth?! people votes for Microsoft's behavior? did I miss something?

Re: terrorism (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954928)

In Soviet Microsoft, executives vote to decide *your* behavior.

Re: terrorism (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22955520)

Yes, with their wallets. Because they don't have to buy MS products and there's no way anyone would ever have to buy Office if he didn't like it. Didn't the libertarian brigade tell you anything about the magic of capitalism?

Re: terrorism (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#22955752)

Yes, you missed something: the DoJ acting the way it did vs MS. I call that encouragement rather than punishment..

Re:I hope MS gets rebuffed harshly (5, Interesting)

Eternal Annoyance (815010) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952494)

Microsoft did this to discredit ISO. Think about it, Microsoft sabotages the voting process and everyone "inconviniently" discovers the voting fraud. As a consequence ISO isn't trusted anymore.

What happens? Everyone scrambles to consolidate "their" (read: Microsoft's) idea of standard. "Unfortunately" this will mean that each and every standard breakable by Microsoft will be broken in such a way that it's very convenient for... Microsoft.

Microsoft is pushing OOXML simply to sabotage ISO and not to provide a "competitor" to ODF, that's only the front.

At this point criminal prosecution of the Microsoft execs responsible for this would be very desirable (corruption, fraud and forgery of documents (yes, it might just apply here)).

The companies aiding Microsoft in the irregularities deserve to get punished severely over this.

not yet, but it will be. (4, Interesting)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950786)

Well I don't read that an appeal has been filed yet.

But it will be.

To not appeal as this point is tantamount to agreeing to the decision to make it a standard. It is demonstrable that a great many people, companies and organizations do not agree (in fairly strong terms) as we can assume an appeal is inevitable.

At this point, an appeal makes a stand and casts doubt on OOXML as a standard - so win or lose in the appeal, the mere fact that there is one will help our case.

Lastly, I state again - if OOXML passed the agreed consultations and tests for a standard, was approved in the conventional standard, and brought a demonstrably superior implementation to ODF then I would accept it in a heartbeat.

ISO is now irrelevant (4, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950798)

The OOXML Standard was bought and the ISO stood idly by, hand extended.

Therefore the ISO is now irrelevant; so who cares about the ISO.

Re:ISO is now irrelevant (2, Informative)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952200)

Indeed...ISO is completely irrelevant now. They are not a reputable organization, and no longer have any say in standards, at least computer-related ones. Noone is going to seek out ISO "approval" for standards anymore, at least noone reputable. FSFE is pretty much saying the exact same thing in TFA. There is even a replacement for ISO springing up. http://www.certifiedopen.com/ [certifiedopen.com]

ISO credibility badly damaged (0, Flamebait)

mkcmkc (197982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952928)

Unfortunately, the dry-and-boring, but deeply authoritative ISO we all grew up knowing is nowhere to be seen here. I think they have about a year to repudiate this standard, and hand out appropriate punishment to the instigators. Otherwise, ISO standards will be understood as coming in two flavors: "Classic" ISO (before 2008-04-01) and "New" ISO (after 2008-04-01), the latter being understood to be crap.

Re:ISO is now irrelevant (1, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22953838)

A) The standard hasn't passed just yet

B) The ISO followed procedure, it was the member organisations. Or rather, members of the boards of some of the member organizations.

C)Anybody who wants open standards ought to care about the ISO as we are currently in a "Fix ISO or Microsoft wins" situation. When something is broken attempting to fix it is usually worth trying before giving up and throwing it away.

Re:ISO is now irrelevant (3, Interesting)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954440)

The ISO followed procedure

Oh, no. It didn't. ISO changed the procedure exclusively for this one draft, hours before making a decision to not kill it while the old procedures required it to be killed.

Re:ISO is now irrelevant (3, Interesting)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954752)

I can't follow your logic.

The ISO standards process was corrupted while processing the OOXML "fast track" request. So the OOXML standard is corrupt, and the application of the "fast track" process is corruptible, if not corrupt itself.

That has no bearing on any of the other ISO standards. Such as

  • ISO 9000: quality management in production environments
  • ISO 10161: Interlibrary Loan Application Protocol
  • ISO 7: Pipe threads where pressure-tight joints are made on the threads
  • ISO 500: Rear-mounted power take-off specifications for agricultural tractors
  • ISO 999: Guidelines for the content, organization, and presentation of indexes
  • ISO 68-1: Basic profile of metric screw threads
  • ISO 7736: Car radio installation space
  • Any of the other 16,000+ ISO standards [wikipedia.org] that enrich our lives

No one with any sense is going to declare the ISO process null and void. It has proven its value too many times, in too many different areas.

What is likely to happen is that people who are used to working with ISO standards are going to be saying "This is great! Now we have a way of measuring how closely different software conforms to an international standard! Look, this version of OpenOffice is in proven conformance with only eighty-something percent of the ODF Standard. But when we measure this version of MS Office against the OOXML Standard, it is in conformance with... uh... less than 10% ????"

The acceptance of OOXML as a standard to be measured against is going to make it more difficult for Microsoft to sell its products in a lot of markets in the short term. From what I've read, the OOXML standard is going to be so hard to implement that it will be difficult for Microsoft to score well against it for the long term as well. Microsoft may have put itself into a situation where they will have to work with ODF files in order to sell to the big accounts, where ISO 9000 and shipping containers that can be moved from truck to train to boat are important to the business.

Re:ISO is now irrelevant (1)

kocsonya (141716) | more than 6 years ago | (#22959002)

> That has no bearing on any of the other ISO standards. Such as
> ISO 9000: quality management in production environments

Um, ISO produces standards. With the OOXML they seem to be not ISO-9000 certified, or their certification should be withdrawn. Therefore, their products (including ISO-9000 itself) is a result of an uncertified process and therefore can not be trusted.

Tongue in cheeck in your own discretion.

Re:ISO is now irrelevant (2, Insightful)

zsau (266209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958580)

I know! It's awful! All of my pieces of A4 paper now have unreliable edges: In fact, I have a page which is not even a known shape, having angles which do not add up. Possibly US letter paper is immune to this? I don't know; I have none around. I tried to get money out of the ATM this morning, but my card stopped fitting after OOXML was passed. It measures the same dimensions as it did previously, but without a reputable standards organisation behind it, the sizes cease to be the same when they are near. I am similarly concerned about the dimensions of my bike tyres. In fact, the ISO has included the BIPM's weights and measures in it, and time too; how can I be sure today's millimetres are as relevant as yesterdays? Even feet and inches are defined in terms of the ISO's metres; perhaps I shall have to revert to Newton's Parisian foot.

The characters on my computer screen, which I previously had encoded in ISO-8859-1 or ISO-10646, now correspond only randomly to the byte sequences they are represented as — how do you who reads this know it is what I have written? The various programming languages I work in no longer operate correctly (except for, ironically, C#); my computer and I cannot agree on the meaning of words or the syntax. I am sure I am using the same semantics and syntax this week as last, and the compilers show no indication of having changed, yet they fail.

No, the ISO no longer has any reputation. All these things and others besides have ceased to work because of it. One mistake — one inability to hold their own against the worst onslaught they have seen — and they are dead, and all they have done is for nought. Before the experiences this last week, I thought the rest of the world would not notice any problems and would force us geeks along with them. How wrong I was!

I'm truly attempting to give a ****... (-1, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 6 years ago | (#22950872)

I mean really , who gives a rats arse about document formatting standards. Who the hell cares about XML? Not real geeks thats for sure. Must be yet another slow news day...

Re:I'm truly attempting to give a ****... (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951054)

MS lockin. 'Nuff said.

Does it even matter if it's a standard? (4, Interesting)

zarmanto (884704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951032)

It seems to me that it doesn't matter in the least if OOXML becomes a standard -- because frankly, nobody but Microsoft is going to put any significant effort into supporting it. A "standard" which is only supported by one product is about as useful as a two inch long drinking straw in a world of six inch tall soda cans... what's the point in even worrying about it?

Another example of this same problem is the Acid3 browser test. While I applaud the guys who came up with the tests for pointing out how many "standards" have been ignored by modern browsers, and I am quite impressed with the folks developing Opera and Safari/Webkit for their efforts to meet those standards... it still won't genuinely mean much until the forty foot gorilla in the room (Microsoft's Internet Explorer, of course) decides to play nice too.

In the case of Acid3, this is a regrettable fact of life that actually works to Microsoft's advantage -- which is why they aren't chomping at the bit to actually fix their browser. In the case of OOXML... Microsoft probably doesn't realize it yet, but they're pretty much screwed no matter how this thing ends.

Re:Does it even matter if it's a standard? (5, Informative)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951234)

It matters because it is a long held practice of governments to specify a "standard" product so that they cannot be accused of choosing proprietary products. If OOXML had not become a standard, governments may not have been ALLOWED to use it according to their own internal rules. Of course, this process is often abused - specifications are often written so that only one product or company qualifies, even though they are not named. So now all governments need to is say "File formats shall comply with standard XYZ and - lo and behold - only MS office qualifies.

Re:Does it even matter if it's a standard? (1)

zarmanto (884704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951298)

I won't argue that point -- but I would suggest that even that makes very little difference, as every government office I've ever been in already uses Microsoft Office exclusively.

(Of course, I'm in the United States, so that may have something to do with my observations...)

Re:Does it even matter if it's a standard? (1)

Adaptux (1235736) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952462)

I won't argue that point -- but I would suggest that even that makes very little difference, as every government office I've ever been in already uses Microsoft Office exclusively.

The point is that with ODF being an international standard, governments were coming under increasing pressure to use that. The ISO/IEC standardization push for OOXML is Microsoft's defensive maneuver to avoid losing too many government organizations as customers.

Re:Does it even matter if it's a standard? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958836)

Yeah, seems to me that a lot of governments purposefully approved OOXML because they didn't want to change they MS office apps.

All I can say to that is why didn't Microsoft add ODF support already? Problem solved.

Re:Does it even matter if it's a standard? (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951870)

This is largely irrelevant - on past form Microsoft will change the specification in the next version of Office and then there will be no systems that comply with the standard

Re:Does it even matter if it's a standard? (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954208)

I don't see the problem... MS Office won't certify as following this standard, not even now, and thus they can't claim they implement an ISO standard.

Now, if the certification process is corrupt then there might be some problems...

Re:Does it even matter if it's a standard? (2, Informative)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22955500)

It matters because it is a long held practice of governments to specify a product that measures up well against a standard so that they cannot be accused of choosing proprietary products...

There, I fixed that thought for you. BTW, this also applies to a lot of big corporations and other entities... not just governments.

Procurement at government agencies and big businesses can usually be simplified to a three step process, that is driven by the need of the individuals involved to protect their careers from the fallout of a bad decision:

  1. Arguing over what criteria to evaluate: use an ISO standard, or some national standard or some industry specific standard? What failure rate will be acceptable? Everybody signs off on this: no single person can be held responsible for a mistake.
  2. Testing the performance of vendor samples against the chosen standard. Done with enough rigorous objectivity to assure that the testers are protected against backlash if the whole thing blows up into a mess later on.
  3. Report on test results, with recommendation to purchase based on the results. Final decision again by a committee so no individual can become a scapegoat for any costly mistakes.

Microsoft products and OOXML cannot reach acceptable scores in this process today, nor in the near future. From what I have read, it seems unlikely that they will ever achieve good scores. And now that Microsoft itself has opened the door for using this bog standard process on software procurement, it will be easier for big business and government to switch from the OOXML standard to the ODF standard than to go back to earlier modes of justifying procurement decisions.

Interesting quote from groklaw link (5, Interesting)

firefly4f4 (1233902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951044)

PJ posted a link to http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3745 [zdnet.com] in her latest update on OOXML, and it contained an interesting quote from news.com:

Microsoft's general manager of standards and interoperability Tom Robertson said that Microsoft, too, has been queried as part of the investigation.

He said that Microsoft will "fully cooperate" with any investigation from the Commission. In response to the accusations of stacking committees, Robertson said that IBM and other competitors have done exactly what Microsoft is accused of doing. For example, an employee from Google, which opposed Open XML standardization, joined the Finnish national committee only three days before a vote.

"It seems that one of the main concerns that people have raised about the process is the broad-based participation in the standards body deliberation," he said. "I think it's ironic IBM is complaining about new members in national standards bodies when they have been working around the clock to get people to join."

Two wrongs do not make a right, and if IBM and other companies were wrong as he suggest, then so was Microsoft if they did the same, and it just goes to support the argument that the process was tampered with and the results discarded. By making that statement, he actually argued against his own position that everything went fine.

Note: I work for IBM, but this opinion is my own

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (4, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951104)

I'm a pretty big Microsoft supporter (yeah, one of like, 3 on this site...I do NOT work for MS however), and even I agree with you. Even if MS won, the process was tempered with. If OOXML is to be an ISO standard, we'll be stuck with it. It has to win fair and square. And if it is good enough to be an ISO standard, it should win, regardless of IBM. If its awful (and in its current state, its probably not so hot), it has to fail, so that MS can go back to the drawing board.

They need to trash the results and start over. As it is, even though OOXML was approved, NO ONE will trust it, because no one know if it actually deserves the spot or not. (And it goes both ways. Its not as simple as "It shouldn't be ISO!").

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (3, Informative)

katz (36161) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951310)

Why should MS "go back to the drawing board" in the first place, instead of just implementing ODF? (though I grant you that's a rhetorical question, since ODF serves to discourage the kinds of lock-in that Microsoft's business model appears to depend on)

- Roey

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952072)

Because a monoculture is never a good thing, and because ODF and OOXML have a different featureset. Microsoft should implement both, and so should Open Office (assuming OOXML gets ISO cert).

Then companies can standardise on whatever suits their internal need bests, while still being able to interroperate with everyone else, and the tools everyone will have will be able to convert from one to the other while only losing features that are unique to their format.

I think this is the ideal world. Though thats a big "should". I don't think the world will go that way, especially not on microsoft's side, but it would be ideal.

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22952380)

Monoculture is good in some instances - in all the instances when you have to represent something.
Document format monoculture is a good thing (Web anyone?)
Measurement system monoculture is a good thing (metric ftw.)

Application monoculture is a bad thing (Microsoft Office.)
OS monoculture is a bad thing (Microsoft Windows.)
Hey, is there a pattern here?

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (3, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952398)

In theory, I agree. If OOXML were truly an open standard, but just differed from ODF in some ways (perhaps better in some ways and worse in others), but otherwise was a fully implementable standard, I would be all for making it an ISO standard and having OpenOffice.org able to read/save OOXML files.

In practice, however, Microsoft has shown that they don't really care about OOXML as a standard. They've said themselves that they aren't going to implement it. If they aren't going to implement it, then how is anyone else supposed to? Besides, it's littered with awful "explanations" like AutoSpaceLikeWord95. How do you AutoSpace like Word95? OOXML doesn't explain this. You're just expected to know. OOXML is really just an attempt by Microsoft to get to claim support for open standards without actually having to support open standards.

In short, I would have no problem with someone else coming up with a format to compete with ODF, but I don't think Microsoft is willing to do it.

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1)

firefly4f4 (1233902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22955190)

Besides, it's littered with awful "explanations" like AutoSpaceLikeWord95. How do you AutoSpace like Word95? OOXML doesn't explain this.
Asking anyone developing OOXML, and they'll tell you it's OK because it was moved to the deprecated part of the specification along with a few other hot-button tags like that.

Of course, there are two obvious problems with this:

1) It's still in the specification, so even if it's deprecated you still need to say what it does... WITHOUT relating to a particular application's implementation.
2) How is it that a brand-new standard specification contains deprecated options?

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 6 years ago | (#22953806)

I'm a pretty big Microsoft supporter

Why? They are a company who are dedicated to making profit and who manifestly do not care about you. Sure, use their products if they are the best choice for you, but why support them? They do not need it. They are not a charity or a cause (or even a sports team): they are a for-profit corportation.

Do you support any other companies?

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954216)

Because there are some real people behind companies. Those people have names, I know many of them, and have talked with many of them, and support them and their work. Obviously, Ballmer isn't one of those people, though.

I beleive in a large part of what they do and want them to continue, and beleive in their ideas. Thats it. This is a forum and obviously I cannot (and would not, even if I could) write an entire book describing in detail my exact meaning, lawyer style, so don't take me too literally on this. I hate Ballmer as much as the next guy, and a lot of what MS does is complete bull, but thats true of everything of a certain size.

Really, I see little difference between a company like MS and an organisation like GNU. Just replace $$ with personal ego gain. They still contain people with visions and ideals that they want to see fullfil, regardless of the primary aspects (cash vs open source movement vs whatever). So supporting one, supporting the other...whatever floats your boat. Of course, that is a very different kind of "support" than supporting a cancer foundation or something (but is very similar to supporting a sports team, yes).

Of course, english is far, FAAAR from being my first language, so if you know of a better way to express what I mean, please feel free to enlighen me. In any case, if it helps, no its not the kind of "support" that would make me shed a tear if they went bankrupt.

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1)

jhol13 (1087781) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954108)

I have basically four complaints of OOXML.
1. Name. It should be changed.
2. ODF. It exist already, it is better (though far from perfect).
3. Immaturity. OOXML is far too immature to be ISO standard, it has too many problems, it is too big. Fast track is not appropriate for it.
4. Compatibility. Microsoft itself will not be compatible with the ISO standard although they will claim it.

If 1, 3 and 4 are solved I would not have anything against forgetting 2 and giving Microsoft an ISO standard.

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954284)

If OOXML is to be an ISO standard, we'll be stuck with it

How so? OSI was (and still is) an ISO standard, which was supposed to supplant IP. How many of your computers are part of an OSI network? Do you know of any computers anywhere that are?

I was involved in a few ISO committees that worked on parts of the OSI standard. I was there as a rep from a smaller company that was developing the standards. We were repeatedly hit with things that sounded very much like this OOXML snafu. We'd suddenly find ourselves reading proposed standards docs that baffled all us tech guys. "How the hell can anyone implement this?" Invariably, it turned out that the new text came from consultants paid by a few of the big network companies, and what they were trying to do was get their own proprietary stuff rubber-stamped as part of the standard. And, as in this case, it always turned out that the proposed specs weren't detailed and unambiguous enough that we saw a way to implement them.

This sort of thing didn't derail ISO back in the 1980s, and it didn't in the 1990s. Why would it today?

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1, Interesting)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952500)

Both sides are doing bad things. I have NEVER understand why ISO allows Big companies to VOTE in this kind stuff because IBM, Microsoft and Novell has so many offices in almost every country so they affect the whole process. I would say that there should be only a EFF and goverment bodies who will use it. Not big corporations to lobby own idea. Microsoft has affected all country votes, just by being in there. Same has IBM done etc etc. Of course if Microsoft and IBM are THE goverment, I understand that they need to be allowed voting. This whole process was like joke in comedy show about murder court. Person (OOXML) who is the accused, can sit there as judge and same time in jury.

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1)

lordshipmayhem (1063660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22954798)

Name one thing that the "anti-OOXML" side has done that is a "very bad thing".

Before you decide to do so, I'd point out that identifying flaws in the proposed standard is NOT a Very Bad Thing, it's the RESPONSIBLE thing.

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (4, Informative)

tokul (682258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952616)

Fins also fired board chairman that opposed to MS-OOXML.

Re:Interesting quote from groklaw link (1)

Weedlekin (836313) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952898)

If both sides were, as MS claim, stacking national bodies to get their own way in this case, then I'm left wondering how many other standards got pushed through ISO (and indeed other standards bodies) in a similar way. This one got lots of attention from geeks because it involved both MS and various FOSS advocates, but there are probably many other situations that we know nothing about where very large players stood to lose a lot of money if ISO ratified something that didn't enshrine their current way of doing something, and would therefore be inclined to do everything they could to ensure that this didn't happen.

So rather than being an exception to the way standards are normally decided, there exists the very real possibility that this is the way the game has been played many times in the past, but most of us just didn't know until Microsoft attempted to do it, thus ensuring that this time there would be thousands of geeks scrutinising a process that's usually ignored by those who aren't directly involved in it.

Where's the evidence? (1)

pyrr (1170465) | more than 6 years ago | (#22953138)

Where is there even a hint of evidence that IBM did any such thing? They're still a powerful player in the solutions marketplace, but if they were abusing the system, wouldn't there be individuals and corporations OTHER THAN MICROSOFT making similar allegations? Wouldn't there have been a substantial surge of companies that had previously ignored ISO proceedings who suddenly were interested enough to sign-up and then vote on only that one standard, as Microsoft partners did?

These allegations seem to be just as baseless as the ones Ballmer made about Linux infringing on Microsoft's code. In other words, it's more of Microsoft doing what it does best-- using FUD to bolster its position and attack its opponents.

If IBM or other companies did such a thing, they would be WRONG. Until Microsoft and 3rd parties actually put-up some compelling evidence that supports that allegation, I think the more reasonable assumption is just that they're engaging in more deceit in their attempts to subvert the process. They've already demonstrated that they're capable of far worse, and the better way to defend their standard push would've been to cough-up the evidence about IBM rather than countering the alleged subtle subversion with bold-faced corruption.

Re:Where's the evidence? (1)

pyrr (1170465) | more than 6 years ago | (#22953388)

Another thought, how many of the folks who joined their respective nations' ISO organizations just for this vote voted AGAINST OOXML as opposed to FOR it? That would tell the tale to some degree. Based on everything I've read, the longer-term members were mostly against OOXML, while the new folks almost all voted for it.

It's not even so much that several vendors suddenly took interest in a hot topic that could affect them, even if Microsoft encouraged its partners to support them in their nations' committees, those partners WOULD have a valid self-interest in seeing Microsoft's wishes being done (OOXML approval could equate to lucrative government contracts). No, the problem was the seemingly widespread irregularities that seem to mostly have involved those opposed to OOXML, regardless of their standing in ISO, being silenced and disenfranchised. Changing "no" votes to "abstain" or just kicking those who didn't support OOXML out of the room and taking a vote to approve, while Microsoft may not have specifically engineered or encouraged those tactics, leaves the whole process tainted.

Is that the best allegation they have? (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22955542)

> Two wrongs do not make a right, and if IBM and other companies were wrong as he suggest, then so was Microsoft if they did the same, and it just goes to support the argument that the process was tampered with and the results discarded. By making that statement, he actually argued against his own position that everything went fine.

True, but you should mention the scale, too. Even if this is true (and I don't know that it is), we're talking about two people. TWO people. Versus dozens of small countries joining the ISO just for this vote, offering bribes in Sweden, and having hundreds of partners join all over the world. So we have TWO PEOPLE versus a DOZEN COUNTRIES?

Because this is their statement, I have to assume that they're making it as strongly as they can. So what we have is AT MOST two people, because if there were more, they would have named them. And they represent IBM & Google outright, not mystery "partners" who have "independent" interests.

So it's funny. They complain about people joining who represent the companies they say they do to thwart a complaint that they essentially bribed "independent" partners to join (check the firehose link for a source, BTW, the editors appear to have cut out the Groklaw sources that detail most of the tampering).

Forgive me, but this is nothing more than an admission of guilt on Microsoft's part.

Can't by me love.. (3, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951246)

Money can't buy me love but apparently it can buy a standard! Microsoft is inherently evil. Like kicking puppies. Or raping a standards body!

Honest guv'nor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22954842)

Or raping a standards body!
It's not rape when she takes your money.

ISO (5, Funny)

Ariastis (797888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951248)

International Sell-Out

It's a trap. (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22951994)

Do this, and you violate the EULA. It doesn't matter that MS may or may not have put this in purposefully. You violate their EULA, then MS gets you to install Vista on your box, and suddenly one day WGA blocks you from downloading a critical update ...

I'm betting that day MS will tell anyone who did this will have to buy a whole 'nother, full version of Vista.

Re:It's a trap. (1)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22952012)

WTH.... slashdot put this on the wrong story... My apologies.

Re:It's a trap. (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957156)

One of the new features of Slashdot's latest upgrade is support for quantum tunneling of posts. Do you like it?

Is this guy serious? (2, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 6 years ago | (#22953232)

Microsoft's general manager of "standards" and "interoperability" [quotes added for accuracy] Tom Robertson says in the article:

"I think it's ironic IBM is complaining about new members in national standards bodies when they have been working around the clock to get people to join."
I guess if someone starts shooting at me, I don't have any right to pick up a gun and shoot back without being guilty of wrongdoing then, eh Mr. Robertson?

Since msft was caught bribing Sweden (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22957096)

Shouldn't the entire process be stopped? Shouldn't there be an end to end investigation?

I realize that the vote from Swedens was thrown out. But does it make any since to assume that if msft was only caught once, then such bribery only happened once? How does that make any sense at all? If msft is trying to bribe their way to a win, the why would msft only bribe one country?

Of course msft down played the incident. Msft said it was just one rouge employee. As absurdly implausible as that story sounds. I would be will to give msft the benefit of even the smallest doubt. But, come on, msft was caught cheating - let's at least stop the process long enough to find out for sure if it was in fact an isolated incident.

Re:Since msft was caught bribing Sweden (1)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22958688)

I said at the time that OOXML's fast track process should be terminated after the Sweden incident (even if just for PR purposes, if nothing else). Then OOXML would go to the slow-track. Of course, Microsoft didn't want to use the slow-track process because by the time that process completed years later, IBM would've convinced governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF, and thereby make it illegal to use OOXML (which was the ultimate goal of anti-Microsoft forces). But I thought that if that's the price Microsoft had to pay for an employee's stupidity, then so be it.

That being said, the Sweden incident was much ado about nothing. Allow me to quote from an Arstechnica post by 'adminfoo':
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/718005041931?r=313007141931#313007141931 [arstechnica.com]

Do you know the full story [msdn.com] of Sweden? How one employee sent an offer to two MS partners, which suggested that those partners should join the Swedish NB, and that MS would in some way pay them back for the joining fees - said mail was deemed inappropriate by MS and a retraction was sent within hours. And it was MS themselves who reported the incident to the Swedish NB - had they not done so, it's possible that no one would ever have heard this story. In the end, Sweden's NB abstained because of other issues.

(It is true that my given link is to a Microsoft employee telling the story - but you can find independent sources of the same thing if you look - and for all the scandal, no one has contradicted Matusow's more complete version of the tale.)
BTW, IIRC, the fee for joining these committees is pretty small, so that doesn't provide much of a "bribery" incentive to begin with.

Cant we quit moaning... (2, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22960014)

I dont really care what happens with the legal side of this, it doesnt matter how many times microsoft get caught with its trousers down, the uninformed masses just dont care (or worse say that its what you do when you have a monopoly? )

What i do want to see, is microsoft having thier asses handed to them on the technological side. With gnome office onboard there is a real chance that microsoft isnt going to have the best implimentation of thier own standard, its much harder to take a finished product and tweak it to conform to the new OOXML changes (without breaking anything), than it is to start from scratch and design a fully OOXML complient (when theres nothing to break). If the gnome team get OOXML implimented well, a small unix style aplication could easily allow convertion between OOXML and ODF ( go crazy and call it OOXML2ODF., Simply install it into the OS, and allow ODF complient programs to use OOXML programs without even relising and visa-versa, this would kill the document office suite link which is microsofts main weapon.

The problem is everybody is too busy bitching about OOXML to realise that MS have given us a chace to beat them on thier home turf.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?