MICROSOFT’S “Insider Friend, ‘the Fox’” Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] is “Looking at the pubic review text of #ODF 1.2 pt 1″ and saying that “some bits still very ropey”

What an unsurprising statement coming from the man who essentially conspired to help Microsoft corrupt ISO’s integrity while he marketed OOXML around the UK.

“ISO is dead for software standards. Do you need an official funeral?”

–Benjamin Henrion, FFII

Moreover, just very recently Alex Brown was seen defending Microsoft’s deviation from ODF [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] — a deviation which is only fragmenting and complicating everything.

Brown is joined by Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza. They are acting like Microsoft reps, to whom Simon Phipps (Oracle) replies with: “My view is that ODF should now just transclude the OOXML formula spec, but that’s probably controversial”

“To an outsider, it would probably seem clear that de Icaza is a Microsoft employee or partner who wishes that ODF just went away.”De Icaza seems very eager to keep smearing ODF, which is a threat to the top cash cow of the company whose board he serves (CodePlex Foundation board). A little conflict of interests there, no? Anyway, he is linking to his colleague Morten Welinder, who is dissing ODF and closing comments, possibly in order to prevent rebuttals from being posted. Rob Weir responded to de Icaza by saying: “The spec that vendors are implementing is linked to from the ODF TC’s homepage. Novell is on the TC. You know this.”

Maybe he’s playing dumb. After all, he also has loyalties to Microsoft, not just Novell. And guess who else is linking to de Icaza and his colleague (the ODF smear)? That’s right, it’s more noise which feeds those at Microsoft who participated in the corruption of ISO and various standards bodies around the world. They quote de Icaza as though he’s their special buddy (which he is, as he even helped bug resolution in OOXML). To an outsider, it would probably seem clear that de Icaza is a Microsoft employee or partner who wishes that ODF just went away. Why are other Microsoft agents like Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza linking to that same post, which is damaging to ODF and not even factual? It’s stuff like this, which makes the question rhetorical.

Miguel de Icaza writes in response to the call-out: “Another Rob Weir swing from Bombastic troll when discussing OOXML to nuanced and apologetic when it comes to ODF”

He’s starting to sound just like another one of those Microsoft employees who are smearing Weir (sometimes by creating smear blogs or calling for resignation).

Weir responds with: “ISO approval is not my success metric for ODF, but rather adopters, users and implementors. By those measure I’m pleased.”

“[I]t seems that Morten isn’t following the ODF development at all.”
      –Jomar SilvaAddressing the actual source of the FUD, Morten Welinder criticises formula handling in ODF even though a lot of office suites (excluding Microsoft Office) successfully implemented ODF support for formulas that are also interoperable. Weir showed this using a table and several sample files about a year ago.

It is worth adding that the ODF smear comes from the same group (Gnumeric) that was helping OOXML get past ISO. We wrote about this at the time [1, 2], specifically when there were complaints about GNOME engaging or in general terms helping Microsoft in that regard (Jody Goldberg from Novell got actively involved for example).

Jomar Silva, who is a key person in ODF, says that “it seems that Morten isn’t following the ODF development at all. Simply pathetic !”

Let’s remember what these people are pushing for at ODF’s expense. OOXML is utterly flawed and it annoys so many users of Microsoft Office, based on this new analysis at INC.com: [via Bob Sutor]

For those using older versions of Microsoft Word, or other non-Microsoft word processing software, the new .docx format can be a real pain. It has caused dissension in some workplaces. How to cope with conflicting Microsoft Office formats.

It’s a funny article to read. Microsoft’s own customers loathe OOXML.

ODF is also important because it offers “equal opportunities”, as advogato.org put it:

It is possible to get people to listen if you want to instil Free Software principles, but they have to have a “handle” against which they are forced to act, within the organisation that they work. Or, if they agree with you in principle, but are otherwise hog-tied, they need that “handle” with which to justify their actions to their superiors.

Using the words “Discrimination” and “Equal Opportunities” in the same sentence seems to do the trick.

Jan Wildeboer says that “The ODF TC peeps should really read this gem,” which accurately dissects some of the deception from Microsoft and its promoters. Here is Miguel de Icaza hugging Jeff Atwood from Microsoft. The photo below (from Marcus Griep) is a very recent one and the description of de Icaza’s talk at this event (filled with Microsoft employees and content) goes as follows:

Miguel also showcased MonoTouch, building a simple program in MonoDevelop on Mac OSX, and demonstrating it in the iPhone simulator. Including lots of pro-Linux banter and some pokes at Richard Stallman, Miguel kept the audience interested and amused, which is exactly what the last presentation in an 8-hour day needs.

Yes, it’s the same guy we have come to know ever since he compared Stallman to George Bush. What does that make it his darling Microsoft? Either way, it’s nice of him to ridicule Stallman in front of an apparently Microsoft-dominated audience. It must be a new and entertaining pastime for them. █

From Marcus Griep

Summary: With the ending of the i4i case OOXML should be removed from ISO and cease to be used

THIS is a subject that we wrote about before, right after it turned out that Microsoft had deliberately lied by saying that OOXML had no patent issues. Microsoft was already struggling against i4i in court [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], knowing damn well the implications it would probably have when it comes to OOXML. Microsoft lied with pride. Microsoft also corrupted ISO with the help of insiders — “accomplices” as one might label them.

Sun’s Tim Bray has just said what many came to witness a few months back.

At the time of the huge OOXML dogfight, one of the reasons Microsoft claimed that the world needed OOXML, even though there was already a perfectly-good ISO-standard XML office-document format, was that it enabled this wonderful customization feature.

What Bray calls the “OOXML dogfight” was a phenomenal display of disregard for the law (see the OOXML Abuse Index), in which the BRM convenor, Alex Brown, personally participated [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Over at Groklaw, Pamela Jones writes: “I wonder how Alex Brown and the gang will handle OOXML now that Microsoft has been found guilty of willful patent infringement in the i4i case and so must remove functionality from XML in its Word products? Does it mean that the standard is no longer “in use”? That it must be withdrawn due to a patent having been asserted against it?”

ISO is probably too corrupt and vain to withdraw OOXML, but that’s what it ought to be doing at this stage. Microsoft rammed something ridiculous under false pretenses, not just with bribery.

Speaking of patents, here is interesting news:

A recent Microsoft patent application applies a similar approach to defining navigational queries. The inventors of the patent filing tell us that queries can be generally classified as falling into a couple of broad categories: discovery queries and navigational queries.

More here:

He compares the Microsoft filing to a recent Yahoo patent filing that details what the Sunnyvale, Calif., company might look for when deciding whether a query was navigational or not. Slawski bases some of his analysis on Microsoft’s “best match” feature.

We previously wrote about the possibility that Microsoft would use patents against Google. █

“The ISO process, brutal and corrupt as it was, has been covered to death by everyone.”

–Tim Bray

Summary: The ups and downs of ODF, the latter being largely the result of Microsoft’s gentle blows

ODF (OpenDocument Format) is still doing pretty well, especially in developing countries like Brazil (also here) and nations where corruption rates are low (notably Scandinavia).

According to this report from IDG, Holland is prepared to help Denmark with ODF, resisting the infinite cronyism of Helge Sander.

The Dutch government has provided Denmark with information regarding the Dutch national plan Heemskerk for open government IT.

In Denmark, there is heated debate about the approach for open IT usage by the government. One of the obstacles is the open file format for mandatory use by the government and government organizations. ODF (Open Document Format) and OOXML (Open Office XML), originally developed by Microsoft, are the candidates for use.

The Dutch Ministry of Finance shared with Denmark the experience and knowledge it has gained from the national plan Heemskerk and the resulting action plan “Nederland Open in Verbinding” (NOiV). Finance spokesman Edwin van Scherrenburg confirmed to Dutch IDG news site Webwereld that the two governments are in contact. “We have shared all information regarding NOiV,” he said.

Further up in Norway, one person writes: “New task: write report for Norwegian government on whether to recommend/require ODF and/or OOXML in Norwegian public sector” (a response to which is: “I did the same for the Danish goverment about 2 years ago, “comparing” ODF, OOXML and PDF. Did I make a difference? I’d like to know”).

“On the menu: one of the smallest cities in Belgium – Nieuwerkerken – needs some new and fancy automatically generated documents in #odf,” says this gentleman from Belgium and ODF is also mentioned in German news sites.

Europe is clearly warming up to ODF and so do developers (new examples here and here).

Bart Hanssens writes from Belgium (a meeting was held in France): “uploaded proposal for #odf 1.1 Interoperability Profile http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=35565″

“ODF TC done,” writes Cherie Ekholm, “starting PDF/UA.” Dennis Hamilton announced: “ODF TC e-ballot on #ODF 1.2 Part 1 CD04 as Public Review draft ends tonight, expected to pass easily based on current votes.”

In addition he wrote: “ODF TC discussed whether to align OSI/IEC IS 26300 and #ODF 1.1 or would ODF 1.2 overtake the effort and time to accomplish. Unresolved.”

Later came: “#ODF TC Approves ODF 1.2 Part 1 Committee Draft CD04 to submit for first-ever Public Review. OASIS to announce after docs all set.”

Bart Hanssens took note and so did Pim Bliek. Mary McRae (the key person for ODF at OASIS) has also responded.

An important subject which was brought up by several people has also been shared by an OpenOffice.org guy, who wrote:

Locked out by design

[...]

Software vendors have tried on and off to lock these documents so users needed the original software to use them. This can go horribly wrong, as some users of Microsoft Office 2003 have just found out to their cost, when the software refused to let them get at their documents – their own intellectual property. This is a design feature of Microsoft Office software which happened to misfire.

What it highlights is that no-one outside Microsoft has a clue what is hidden inside their secretive software. It also highlights the importance of not using a secret format to store valuable office documents. The safe way to store valuable documents is in OpenDocument Format (ODF) – an ISO approved open standard which isn’t owned by any one company. It’s the best guarantee against being held to ransom one day by a software supplier.

We wrote about this a few days ago and so did Microsoft. Wolf Corcoran-Mathe writes: “[Microsoft Fixes Office 2003 Document Lockout] Great. Now if they could only stop breaking ODF.” He is referring to Microsoft’s inability (or unwillingness) to obey interoperability needs [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

“Brown’s private firm benefits from Microsoft as we showed many times before, so he never relents.”Now we get to the ugly parts where Microsoft is attacking ODF, as usual. Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22] is sticking his nose again, trolling/heckling John with some poison against ODF (see the comments in the blog above). Brown’s private firm benefits from Microsoft as we showed many times before, so he never relents. Microsoft’s very unethical Doug Mahugh is also pushing the same Microsoft line, which gets passed around by others who are associated with Microsoft. It's like a cult of money and power. Corruption is a key ritual, which the heavily-spammed ANSI pretends never happened. But to quote Brown’s predecessor: “This year WG1 have had another major development that has made it almost impossible to continue with our work within ISO. The influx of P members whose only interest is the fast-tracking of ECMA 376 as ISO 29500 has led to the failure of a number of key ballots. Though P members are required to vote, 50% of our current members, and some 66% of our new members, blatantly ignore this rule despite weekly email reminders and reminders on our website. As ISO require at least 50% of P members to vote before they start to count the votes we have had to reballot standards that should have been passed and completed their publication stages at Kyoto. This delay will mean that these standards will appear on the list of WG1 standards that have not been produced within the time limits set by ISO, despite our best efforts.

“The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible.”

It indeed became impossible and ISO is now corrupt [1, 2, 3, 4].

So, Microsoft got away with misconduct, who cares? Many people said the same thing when George Bush stole the elections. Whatever.

A post that we cited the other day comes from Rob Weir and Glyn Moody calls it a “good summary of where we are, and why Microsoft’s moves are fishy…”

Microsoft’s obligations are by definition unethical and very much against ODF. That’s just how the company operates, for its shareholders. “[T]hat’s super screwy because “O”OXML is Microsoft’s format. ODF is the REAL open format,” says this one person to a peer/friend, later adding that the nature of this situation is “making ODF far more resilient against bugs, because they can easily be patched.” █

Summary: Several more advancements for ODF and another eye-opening reminder that poorer countries are discriminated against by the Microsoft-faithful crowd

LAST week we wrote about Slovakia and ODF. Supporters of open standards should be pleased to know that the international standard, ODF, is gaining ground very rapidly. Here is a small update from Slovakia: “SK committee for e-standards if the government agreed to change ODF 1.0 to ODF any version up to 1.2 (1.0,1.1,1.2)…“

And it’s not just Slovaks who are likely to enjoy the ability to access and share documents from almost any office suite. In Japan too there is great progress, as Murata says that the Japanese standard for ODF is finally released: “The ODF JIS has been approved finally. We trust in better maintenace by SC34/WG6 and the ODF TC…”

“The ODF JIS has been approved finally. We trust in better maintenace by SC34/WG6 and the ODF TC…”
      –Dr. MurataFellow countrymen spread the word even further, but SC34/WG6 cannot be trusted for maintenance. We’ll come to this in a moment. One person from elsewhere says: “Good to see some practical changes — more colleagues will be using ODF format for docs, so much better for cross platform”

Another person argues that “we need to specific data format (e.g., ODF) not software suite”

This brings us to some ugly stuff involving Microsoft’s “Insider Friend, ‘the Fox’”, whose name in this case is Alex Brown. He has done a lot to deserve people’s disdain [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] because he seems more interested in Microsoft’s interests than in standards.

Several months ago Microsoft tried to kick IBM/Weir out of the ODF TC (technical committee). Jomar Silva, who helped expose the mischiefs of Alex Brown and his beloved Microsoft, is now being pressured out (along with his country) by Alex Brown. [same article in Portuguese]

Alex Brown wants Brazil out of the ISO !

As if the dirty things he did with Brazil during the OpenXML BRM in ISO wasn’t sufficient, now Alex Brown suggests in his blog that Brazil shouldn’t be a SC34 member at JTC1. Reason: Brazil did not send delegates to the SC34 WG’s meeting in Paris last week!

Brazilian people are rightly furious [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Microsoft and its minions would love to push resistance out of the table, leaving just the corrupt and the rich (some of the former funded by the latter) to discuss matters, all at the exclusion of the developing nations that dared to file formal complaints to ISO. In turn, ISO, which is also run by the rich and the corrupt, rudely threw away all these complaints.

Speaking of this Microsoft-stuffed [1, 2, 3, 4] SC34 meeting in Paris, Mary McRae from OASIS writes to Alex Brown that he “went to Paris and ate too many croissants. Washed down with brandy.”

Brown was baffled by it because he does not get British humour [1, 2, 3] (yes, it’s rather ironic) and Aslam from South Africa (which filed the first complaint to ISO) said that he “would watch the BRM re-run RT @fiberartisan: @BartHanssens #oasis I think some of them would make better reality TV shows…”

Boycott Novell has good record of the corruption that occurred at the BRM, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4]. Speaking of which, one reader sent us these thoughts a few days ago, in reference to Microsoft crime and inability to serve the industry:

Dumped in a landfill is even less ceremonious than dumping in a mass grave.

Where there are Microsoft partners and distributors, there are Microsoft products and the One Microsoft Way of thinking:

How much can be attributed to Sharepoint? LSE didn’t have much luck with Sharepoint. It’d be hard to imagine that a smaller budget would have better luck specially if they’re so ideologically driven as to ignore the established, faster, cheaper, better, easier FOSS solutions.

Another reader wishes to remind people of the real history of Microsoft Office, which Microsoft sympathisers try to rewrite:

Here’s a subtle piece of Microsoft Revisionism.

Ah, now I see, it’s Joe Wilcox. This kind of thing is typical of his flamebait that I’d rather not draw attention to, but I thought I’d share my analysis.

While pretending to analyze a Microsoft failure, he creates a false impression of their products excellence as a means of success:

“Microsoft Office achieved two important goals by the mid 1990s. Established format standards that resolved problems sharing documents created by disparate products. Ensured that Microsoft file formats would become the adopted desktop productivity standards.”

Office did not work then and it does not work now. The success of Microsoft Office was the end result of hardware economics and targeted dumping. In the late 80s and early 90s, IBM hardware was all most people could afford and Microsoft made sure it came with nothing but Microsoft DOS. Microsoft did a good job of getting Office to people who would be in a position to ram it down other people’s throat. Those who actually did the work preferred Word Perfect and other superior products. I saw this every place I worked at the time. They used the same kind of panel stuffing that they would later brag about in their training documents and that was so obvious in the OOXML ISO process.

Wilcox should know better than this and actually includes the information he needs in the same article,

“‘Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats,’ Gates wrote. He observed not seeing a single Microsoft file format ‘after 10 hours of browsing…’”

Yes, in 1995 people with a clue were using other things. They still are today and, thanks to the Internet, we can derail Microsoft corruption. In all that time, despite great effort, Microsoft has yet to destroy Adobe’s document formats that actually work. It’s not from lack of trying, it’s from lack of product that works. Wilson ignores the rise of in house Wikis as a replacement for the usual, tedious Microsoft network and emailed revision train wreck.

Wilcox goes on to cover up Microsoft’s failure at “Consumer” as some kind of ordered retreat. In the last ten years Microsoft has wasted tens of billions of dollars trying to dominate media distribution. Windows Media Center, Zune, Xbox, various forms of Microsoft TV have all been colossal technical failures. In the competitive consumer market, where stacked panels don’t work, Microsoft was unable to win despite some key hardware format victories. Every cheap music player in the world works with Windows media formats but very few will do ogg vorbis, flac and other superior and royalty free formats. Microsoft blew that tremendous advantage with obnoxious digital restrictions and software that everyone hated. They failed there for the same reason they are failing elsewhere, Microsoft is just not competitive.

Watch what Microsoft is doing right now to people who try to do their job and cover events:

Microsoft PR outlaws iPhone talk

A Microsoft manager created a bit of a fuss by advising a journalist not to mention the iPhone at a Microsoft event in Germany, betraying frayed nerves in the MS camp.

The journalist was apparently guilty of expressing his opinion that no mobile phone was easier to use than an iPhone. We might disagree with that opinion*, but we wouldn’t demand he stop mentioning Apple products, as one Microsoft manager did.

This would not be the first time that Microsoft behaves in this way.

We wish not to end with a negative tone, so here is some good OpenOffice.org news, which ought to reflect positively on ODF too.

There are some nice (and rather major) changes coming to OpenOffice.org and KOffice too is supporting ODF with Nokia’s help and in collaboration with OpenOffice.org. The replies in posts like this one bode well for ODF and one person has published the article which is titled “ODF – The Future of Literate Programming?”

Which brings me to the ‘what if’ question. What if we leveraged the fact that there is now a non-proprietary standard XML representation for richly formatted office documents called ODF[2]. What if we used ODF compatible tools like OpenOffice[3] to write our programs? How would we extract the lines of code to feed to our compilers? We could just use paragraph styles that indicate Èfeed this to the compilerÉ.

For documentation, an embarrassment of riches would then be instantly available. We could use level heading to split up the code/documentation into hierarchical chunks. We could generate tables of contents from these level headings. We could insert pictures wherever we need them along with tables, cross references, index entries and so on. Heck we could even embed spreadsheets, photographs taken of white-boards at planning meetings, the whole shebang.

WYSIWYG literate programming with ODF? I do not see why not.

OpenOffice.org plans to reach a broader market under the slogan “open for business”:

Open for Business logo couple of years ago we came up with a slogan for OpenOffice.org – Open for Business – to get across a couple of messages:

* OpenOffice.org software may be used by commercial businesses completely free of any licence fees
* OpenOffice.org software is also a great platform to build businesses around – training providers, systems integrators, PC manufacturers to name but a few

With OpenOffice.org 3.1.1 already out there, the Sun engineers are testing version 3.2 and publishing their results.

Automated tests on milestone OO320m7 are finished. Automated testing team reported a ‘green state’ for all automated tests. Just a small problem in w_updt.bas bother the consistent picture of all platforms marked green in QUASTe. This issue wasn’t easy to find but at the end we solved the problem in showstopper CWS ‘jl146′ with issue 107038. Depending on desktop respectively OpenOffice.org window size the document is middle or left aligned with automatic view layout (which is default). This lead to the problem sometimes the objects in writer document were drawn outside of the documents area by autotest. Finally we found and fixed it by correcting view layout before testcases run. Some additional minor fixes for more stability were also done in this CWS. Punctually with release of RC1 next week the autotests are expected to deliver a ‘green state’ on initial testrun.

IBM has published this new article about ODF and lpOD (first mentioned here) has a new release, in addition to this new release of odsPhpGenerator.

odsPhpGenerator is a small and easy library to generate OpenDocument Spreadsheets. It requires only PHP 5.0, DOM, and zip support.

Projects that support ODF just carry on coming. So, all in all, the real standard is winning. █

“ISO is dead for software standards. Do you need an official funeral?”

–Benjamin Henrion, FFII

–MSNBC, 2007

Summary: More analysis of Microsoft’s OOXML shenanigans in France and some updates on the uptake of ODF

AFTER what Microsoft had done in France (with Sarkozy's help), it was perhaps inevitable that France allowed OOXML [1, 2]. As somebody from France now puts it in English:

Politicians, lobbyists and scapegoats: When choosing not to choose should make you vote the next time

[...]

This is how we come to the present RGI. The document by itself has been totally rewritten, choosing to leave aside the policy aspect in favor of an exhaustive referencing and classifying of existing technology and standards. This document itself integrates well with the upper echelons of European interoperability framework and does not attempt to dictate what the public sector stakeholders should do. On the crucial question of the office file formats, it is obvious that the authors spent some time carefully choosing their words. While the use of xml-based file format is clearly recommended, ODF is being put under observation (the reason for this is unclear) and so is OOXML, but at least we know the reason for this: OOXML has no known implementation (and won’t have any until a long time, they might have added) and therefore cannot be used.

Guess who’s going to France very soon? To quote: “#odf TC scratching its head what actions we have with regard to maintenance and the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 WG6 meeting in Paris 12/4.”

“The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be as wasted as I fear they could be.”

–Martin Bryan, Former Convenor of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 [OOXML] WG1

The above blog also refers to the role of Alex Brown (Martin Bryan’s successor), as recently exposed by someone who was close to the incidents.

* If that weren’t enough, Jomar Silva from the ODF Alliance Brazil has posted its latest revelations about the infamous Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) on OOXML in Geneva and how Alex Brown, its dubious convener, did everything to stop some delegations asking some interesting questions. It is amazing to see how international processes can be bent towards one and the same goal.

Microsoft’s corruption of the process has fortunately enough been documented. It reminds people that Microsoft never changed.

In better news, people’s support of ODF is evident thanks to new tweets, such as: “Please change it to OpenDocument Format. #ODF #deathtoDOCX”

With more ODF coverage and releases of products that support ODF (KOffice 2.1 in this case), it is clear that Microsoft failed to destroy ODF. That’s what it tried to do. In fact, increasingly we find products that support ODF but do not support OOXML. To give one new example (“Black Friday Special for Tables”):

Tables can import and export spreadsheets in Excel, OpenDocument and CSV format as well as export a spreadsheet or single sheets as PDF.

Here is another new example, the 1.0 release of OpenYABS.

It writes PDF or ODF (OpenOffice format) documents, and is a multiuser system. It is the successor of MP Invoicing. It can use any JDBC compliant database as a backend, and works in heterogenous networks, allowing fine grained security settings. It can also be extended with modules.

ODF and PDF only. █

–Honor de Balzac

Summary: Analysis of a culture where those who believe in the law are being discouraged and daemonised

AT Boycott Novell we often get flak for merely pointing out the truth, such as the truth that Intel and Microsoft are criminal companies. That’s a factual statement, it’s nothing to be embarrassed about. There is even action in the United States now, which would seem more rare than similar actions in Korea and Europe, for example. Microsoft was found guilty twice in Korea this year [1, 2] and Intel just once (one time is enough). In Europe, Intel was found guilty this year and Microsoft is still under multiple antitrust investigations.

“Somehow the criminal receives sympathy and the justice seeker eventually daemonised…”Our reader Yuhong Bao has shown us this article where NVIDIA is described as though it decided to “Harass Intel”. Spot the irony. The victim of the criminal activity is now described as an “harasser”, but it is no more an “harasser” than the police harasses a murderer. Somehow the criminal receives sympathy and the justice seeker eventually daemonised (NVIDIA has its share of crimes too). That’s the society we live in — one where those who challenge authority are targeted by people who are kept separate, isolated, and hostile towards peers who merely stand up for their neighbours’ rights (including protesters).

This serves as timely indication that criticising someone for crime is a bad thing to do. Here are some of Intel’s crimes as NVIDIA might put them:

NVIDIA Uses Cartoons to Harass Intel

[...]

The site is especially critical of CEO Paul Otellini. A recent post features a cartoon with a cross-eyed Otellini denying using “bribery, coercion and kickback relations” to try to corner the market. The site has a rather humorous disclaimer informing readers that it “is not provided, sponsored or endorsed by Intel Corporation.”

Intel has meanwhile chosen to settle with AMD, but the case should be between Intel and the people, whom Intel robbed by overcharging, limiting choice, etc. In general, Intel should be embargoed for illegal activities and several executives put in prison. Such a thing rarely happens in the society we live in, which means that those who pillage and plunder may simply be forced to give away part of their loot. Eventually, this leaves the criminal better off, sending out the message that crime pays off. It’s sad, but it’s still true. Are penitentiaries only for crimes whose cost to society is low, such as shoplifting?

More recently we encountered Microsoft’s OOXML corruptions, for which the company was not held accountable. Microsoft showed that you can be a criminal in society and walk away freely as long you wear a suit. Here is Norbert Bollow’s latest response to what happens in ISO.

Since the results of the DCOR1 (draft corrigendum 1) ballots for ISO/IEC 29500 have been distributed to the ISO/IEC member bodies last week, it has become clear that there is much confusion about what the relevant ISO/IEC rules (in this case, the JTC1 Directives) say about this kind of situation.

Microsoft — by coercing ISO — corrupted both ISO and itself. This is just a major loss to the IT industry as a whole and no justice was ever sought. Those who point this out will usually be described as “negative” characters, simply because they stand up for the law. What an amazing reversal. Laws were established to protect the majority from the minority of the opulent, but nowadays it feels like the opposite. █

“Microsoft corrupted many members of ISO in order to win approval for its phony ‘open’ document format, OOXML. This was so governments that keep their documents in a Microsoft-only format can pretend that they are using ‘open standards.’ The government of South Africa has filed an appeal against the decision, citing the irregularities in the process.”

–Richard Stallman, June 2008

–Microsoft’s Doug Mahugh about OOXML in Malaysia

Summary: OOXML/ISO corruptions tied not only to Microsoft employees but also their seemingly-independent accomplices

OOXML corruptions are a well-documented fact and the phrase “insider friend, ‘the fox’” comes from Microsoft itself (an internal presentation that also encourages bribery).

Evidence surrounding Alex Brown’s role (and conflict of interests) is a subject we have already covered in many posts that include [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21].

More recently, Alex Brown got extremely busy with OOXML, removing criticisms from the article in Wikipedia. There is no surprise there. Now we find this story from Brazil about Brown’s role in violating any rule of reason in order to push through OOXML.

Why Alex Brown, even knowing the importance of the issue, shamelessly manipulated the meeting to prevent the proposal presentation by Brazil ?

I think many of these questions will stay unanswered, but I’d really like to understand what motivated the Alex Brown to change in such an outrageous way the course (and outcome) of OpenXML in ISO.

Since this meeting ended in Geneva, I haven’t spent even one day of my life without wondering: What would have happened if we had presented our proposal, and what motivated Alex Brown to manipulate in such a way that meeting?

Now that everyone knows the “backstage” of Alex Brown’s decision, preventing Brazil to present the binary mapping proposal of the last BRM day, a few comments are pertinent.

Reviewing everything that happened during the BRM, the manipulation of the meeting progress by Alex Brown is getting more and more evident, and it’s also clear that he was responsible for enforcing the hidden agenda of the meeting. A quick search on his blog, his “contributions” to OpenXML in ISO and his relationship with ECMA (and ECMA members), will show the close relationship he has with OpenXML (and this is the minimum I can write about it).

An example of such manipulation of the agenda is clear and obvious: The ECMA delegation (as far as I remember ECMA isn’t a ISO National Body) had 30 minutes in each of the first two days of the BRM to make a speeches about “legacy compatibility”. In summary, the Brazilian delegation (which is an ISO National Body), couldn’t speak for lack of time, but the ECMA had 30 minutes in each of the first two days of the meeting to make their speech. This stupidity didn’t happened on the other days of the BRM because on the second day of the BRM, during a meeting between Alex Brown and the HoDs, Deivi (head of the Brazilian delegation) filed a protest against these ECMA’s speeches.

Talking about ECMA’s speeches, one of those was given by a representative of the British Library, and I mention this fact because I have the impression that the triad British Library, Alex Brown and Microsoft may turn on some lights for my U.K. friends ( and I would love to know what they have to say about it).

When does shilling become a punishable crime? And what does ISO have to say about it? █

“ISO is dead for software standards. Do you need an official funeral?”

–Benjamin Henrion, FFII

Photo from the public domain

Summary: A lot of ODF news and some leading developments from Malaysia

QUITE a few things have been happening in “ODF world” and this is just a concise summary.

Jomar Silva was one among many people who passed on the message that says: “ODF has been signed in as Malaysian Standard [MS] (announcement coming soon). PDF will be MS soon as well.” People are happy because they understand the importance of ODF.

Malaysia is no stranger to ODF and the government there uses OpenOffice.org in many places. We wrote about Malaysia and the international document standard (ODF) in:

• Malaysia Saves with Free Software and ODF, Europe Rises Against Microsoft
• Malaysia Turns to OpenDocument Format and Deployments Begin
• OpenDocument Format Wins in Malaysia
• Malaysia Wants a Truly Open Document Format and So Does New York State
• ODF Op-Eds from South Africa, Malaysia
• OOXML: What Really Happens in Malaysia
• Microsoft Insults the Intelligence of Malaysians, Choice of ODF
• Microsoft Still Contaminates Malaysian Press for OOXML Publicity
• Quote of the Day: What Microsoft Did in Malaysia
• Microsoft Goes Lobbying Against OpenDocument Format in Malaysia
• Malaysia looks at OOXML (and it doesn’t like what it sees)
• Does Microsoft Buy Organic OOXML ‘Support’ in Malaysia?

In Holland too there is a push for ODF (in Dutch), which is a vital part of the country’s move to Free software in government.

Bart Hanssens is preparing a presentation on ODF signatures and helps in preparing the ODF Plugfest, not just ODF itself (see the OASIS Web site. Dennis Hamilton too is involved in the process).

Michael Brauer and Rob Weir are still at the forefront of ODF and this includes activities like presentations.

Bob Sutor writes about the OpenOffice.org 2009 Conference, which is coming soon (November third). There are other other noteworthy events that cover ODF, mostly those that involve Free software. Regarding the OpenOffice.org 2009 Conference, here is a new blog post:

The OpenOffice.org conference will start in a few days. It’s high time to prepare for the stay – e.g. by consuming Italian style food and delicious coffee specialties. Today, I’ve added the second entry in my little series of “OOo logo interpretations”: Two cappuccino and one espresso, per favore!

Many new programs claim ODF support. Here for example is another Mac program that claims support of ODF. It’s called Nisus Writer Pro. We are finding ODF support also here in phpMyAdmin and in AbiWord, which has a brand new release that targets not only low-capacity PCs. At Linux Crunch there is this new preview of OpenOffice 3.2, which may be more suitable for computers with high specifications (thus the importance of choice and diversity unified by open standards).

Finally, the release date for OOo 3.2 is expected to be on 14 December 2009. You can download the Development version from here. Remember, it is not the final version, so it might have some bugs. Help developers to kill them by reporting about them in OpenOffice.org’s bugs system. Any comment is more than welcome.

Google Docs enables exporting documents and spreadsheets as ODF.

With no fanfare or as much as an official announcement, Google has taken an important step in making users’ Google Docs more open and portable.

It turns out that RedOffice now has a GNU/Linux port which is still experimental.

The application, or should I say a set of applications, I got so fascinated with, is in a nutshell an OpenOffice derivative, created by a Chinese company responsible for RedFlag Linux distro. The application suite is called: RedOffice and you can get an experimental Linux version here: http://202.10.78.132/download/RO45StandardForLinuxPre.tar !!!Beware!!! the application is a beta, and is not really free (though I can’t be too sure as I don’t read Chinese).

Bob Sutor and several others have begun drawing attention to Rob Weir's latest post, which Groklaw addressed in detail.

Rob Weir has an eye-opening report on how the Microsoft-stuffed committee implementing fixes to OOXML is extending the “standard”, which turns out to be not exactly standard, to better conform to Microsoft Office 2007, and without following usual procedures. That is utterly backwards. Normally, vendors work to make their products conform to the standard, and it’s very unusual for a “standard” to be made to conform to one vendor’s proprietary product. I want to reproduce the article here, because it is an object lesson, a timely one.

After corrupting ISO for OOXML, Mirosoft employees try to befriend pro-ODF people who still stand in Microsoft’s way, but it’s not working out. Microsoft should first support ODF, properly [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. █

Summary: Microsoft further corrupts the integrity of standards while pretending to be opening up

A lot of noise is being generated out of Microsoft’s announcement that it would ‘open’ an Outlook format, which some Free software like Thunderbird was already able to decipher anyway. Microsoft did something similar with proprietary Office formats that developers had already reverse-engineered due to Bill Gates' brutally anti-competitive attitude.

A reader has mailed us a cartoon on the subject (see above). “Some or all of the attached might be used,” he explains, but “it might have more impact if the dialog were about standards. What was that ’standard’ that Microsoft wanted developers to use, but guaranteed failure for those that tried it?”

For those who are thinking that Microsoft has changed its ways after the OOXML corruptions, look no further than Rob Weir’s latest post.

However, in other cases (in fact most of the cases), the Microsoft-dominated WG4 appears to have overstepped the permissible bounds for corrigenda, and indeed gone far, far beyond what it stated it would be doing in corrigenda. Let’s look at a few examples.

(Sadly, the general public is not given access to the text of the draft corrigenda (the DCOR) but those on the inside can follow along by reading N 1252 in the SC34 document repository.)

[...]

I invite you to go back to the defect log [PDF] and search for “BRM”. You will find several oddities. For example, among these proposed changes are some that actually reverse BRM decisions. Yes, you heard me correctly. SC34/WG4, the Microsoft-dominated committee that maintains OOXML, is undoing various BRM decisions that enabled OOXML to be approved in the first place. Why? Well, of course, to make the standard conform more to Microsoft Office.

[...]

So although Microsoft Office does not conform to ISO/IEC 29500 today, I have no doubt that within a few months it will fully conform. But not a single line of code will have changed in the Office product. Office 2007 will be retroactively made to conform to ISO/IEC 29500. What will happen is the standard will be modified to match that single vendor’s products, by misapplication of an ISO procedure intended for fixing minor drafting errors.

So why go through all this trouble? I believe this is all about getting the OOXML standard “corrected” so Microsoft can push for it to get it officially adopted around the world. The only reason they’ve held back so far is because MS Office does not actually implement ISO/IEC 29500 today. So it would have been counter productive for them to push for official adoption. However, once this oversight is remedied, by changing the standard to match their product, then watch out.

[...]

So Microsoft is now off extending OOXML, and this whole ISO escapade with OOXML seems for naught. (I hear also that Microsoft is also backing off the submission of their Extensible Page Specification (XPS) to ISO as well, saying that “an Ecma Standard is good enough”.) It appears that Microsoft got what they wanted from ISO and is moving on. Who said it would last more than a night? As my grandmother used to say, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”

[...]

The pattern is clear: OOXML will be extended by Microsoft much faster than it will be standardized and corrected by ISO. This will make the ISO version of OOXML, currently not supported by Microsoft, even more irrelevant in the future.

Who didn’t see that coming? If ISO does not toss out OOXML as informed people are demanding, then it will drift further into oblivion [1, 2, 3, 4]. █

“This year WG1 have had another major development that has made it almost impossible to continue with our work within ISO. The influx of P members whose only interest is the fast-tracking of ECMA 376 as ISO 29500 has led to the failure of a number of key ballots. Though P members are required to vote, 50% of our current members, and some 66% of our new members, blatantly ignore this rule despite weekly email reminders and reminders on our website. As ISO require at least 50% of P members to vote before they start to count the votes we have had to reballot standards that should have been passed and completed their publication stages at Kyoto. This delay will mean that these standards will appear on the list of WG1 standards that have not been produced within the time limits set by ISO, despite our best efforts.

The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be as wasted as I fear they could be.”

–Martin Bryan, Former Convenor of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 [OOXML] WG1

Summary: Just like a filmography-style mafia, Microsoft and its allies proceed from corrupting ISO to bashing ODF from the inside and trying to control it too

MICROSOFT MAY hope that people will forget what it did for OOXML, but the past returns to haunt as more abusive behaviour gets seen. In light of the i4i case for instance [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], Jomar Silva raises the point that Microsoft lied about patents in OOXML, with the assistance of its special friend Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21].

Here is what Silva wrote a few days ago:

They also defined the coordinator of the BRM, Alex Brown (who also played a crucial role in the outcome of OpenXML, but that’s subject for another post, because I didn’t revealed yet all I saw in Geneva), and he publishes on his blog a FAQ with the rules of the BRM. This FAQ also circulated as an official ISO document, and can be found here.

Look what is written in this document:

4.1 Will IPR issues be discussed at the BRM?

No. IPR issues in this process are the exclusive preserve of the ITTF. IPR decisions have previously been delegated by all the ISO and IEC members (NBs) to the CEOs of IEC and ISO, and they in turn have examined them and found no outstanding problems. NBs seeking reassurance in such matters must pursue them through other avenues than the BRM.

In other words, the CEOs of ISO and IEC (the highest authorities of the two entities) had assessed the intellectual property issues on OpenXML and found nothing, so no committee around the world have to worry about the issue… I remember that I’ve asked about it few times, and the answer was always the same: “Kid, you are doubting the CEOs of ISO and IEC ?”… but what about the i4i litigation ?

[...]

Most of the ECMA delegates I know are Microsoft employees or business partners of the company. This staff can be anything but “uninformed” and therefore I can’t believe that ECMA didn’t know the litigation too.

So, I change the question asked by Groklaw almost two months ago for a more direct one: Who fooled who?

We all know that all NBs was fooled, that the countries have seen their names used in an unscrupulous way and that all delegates and competent technicians has been fooled too.

I really hope to hear something from the cited parties cited, and I believe that all International Society expect the same. We no longer live in a world where a nonsense fact like this can be accepted, and I’ll not stop until I find an answer (and I know I’m not alone in this quest).

I also would like to know from the ISO/IEC what they have to say about all this. They knew the i4i litigation ?

To finalize, I appeal again to CEOs of ISO and IEC: The G-20 is a reality, and it’s never too late to correct an injustice !

In the comments, the president of the FFII writes:

ISO should pull down the ISO29500 immediately.

No one can implement this specification safely.

ISO29500 should be withdrawn “Now”.

Georg C. F. Greve, the founder of the FSFE, writes about the above: “The first rule of the #OOXML club? Don’t talk about the legal problems!”

Rob Weir has more to say about the role of Alex Brown:

Curiously, NBs were asked to make their final decision without actually seeing the text of the standard they were being asked to approve. ISO leadership denied requests from several NBs, a formal SC34 resolution requesting this text, as well as NB appeals, all which asked to have access to the “final DIS” text that would eventually be published. The ISO chief, in his response to the NB appeals, called the final text of OOXML “irrelevant” (prophetic words, indeed!) and would only permit NBs to have access to a list of over 1,000 resolutions from the BRM, many of which gave great editing discretion to the Microsoft consultant who would eventually produce the final text of the specification.

I discussed why the lack of a final DIS text was a problem back in May 2008:

We are currently approaching a two month period where NB’s can lodge an appeal against OOXML. Ordinarily, one of the grounds for appeal would be if the Project Editor did not faithfully carry out the editing instructions approved at the BRM. For example, if he failed to make approved changes, made changes that were not authorized, or introduced new errors when applying the approved changes. But with no final DIS text, the NB’s are unable to make any appeals on those grounds. By delaying the release of the final DIS text, JTC1 is preventing NB’s from exercising their rights.

Would you make thousands of changes to code and then not allow anyone to test it, and then release it internationally? Of course not. Doing so would amount to professional malpractice. But that is essentially what ISO did with OOXML.

Weir is very careful not to mention names (personalising issues), but it’s obvious who’s who, not to mention the current role these people play in derailing ODF. We shall come to this in a moment. To say that ISO was “gamed” is an understatement. ISO was hijacked and a lot of people corrupted and bribed. There is extensive evidence to show this.

On a more positive note, Bob Sutor (IBM) writes about new success stories for ODF, followed by feedback from Roberto Galoppini and also his colleague Rob Weir.

Roberto Galoppini also writes about the ODF plugfest and spreads the word now that the event is approaching.

The second in a series of events that will bring together implementors of OASIS OpenDocument Format/ISO 26300 to unilaterally test and discuss implementation issues of ODF with each other. All ODF implementors and/or those looking into the matter are invited to participate in this event on behalf of the Netherlands government and OpenDoc Society.

We wrote about those plugfests before, e.g. in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9 10, 11, 12]. Microsoft (and its ecosystem) attended plugfests to throw some criticism at this standard, which it hates but at the same time must watch over. Alex Brown’s friend, who has always been hostile towards ODF, drops Microsoft’s talking points to be used against ODF while Microsoft’s Doug Mahugh makes fun of ODF as well. Those who are not employees of Microsoft often feed the company by insulting ODF “by proxy”, so to speak.

“Those who are not employees of Microsoft often feed the company by insulting ODF “by proxy”, so to speak.”In the latest example seen above, we are witnessing a familiar old pattern of deception. As our reader puts it, “Microsoft is able to spin it as Microsoft vs 1 company (either IBM or Sun depending on the circumstances) with amnesia about the rest. Via OASIS, 600 companies, universities and government agencies were behind the initial development of the first try at a universal office format. About two dozen were taking the lead in development.” This politicisation of the issue (courtesy of Microsoft) has gone on for years.

Anyway, those who are speaking about the ODF plugfest now include Glyn Moody, Gwynne Monahan, Jomar Silva, Thomas Zander (Nokia), Rob Weir, and the “elephant in the room” Doug Mahugh. The Microsoft crowd is still trying to 'tame' or dethrone Rob Weir, so Jomar Silva sarcastically writes: “Oh my God ! Mr. Vadar is the chair of the ODF TC ! We must be the bad guys ! (M$ fan boys are impressive)”

Microsoft is still striving to control ODF like it controls ISO and Weir must be polite. That’s probably why he also omits names and does not write about the OOXML scandals as much as he used to.

Microsoft’s hijack attempts affect not only the ODF TC. Watch who is involved in the Document Interoperability Initiative: Microsoft, Microsoft allies, and Microsoft-funded groups.

* I’ll be covering the Office 2010 extensions (as was covered by the Office program managers in last month’s DII workshop in Redmond). I will also present the latest news on how we’re working to improve ODF interoperability between Office and other popular applications, and talk about our plans for the future.
* Alex Brown will be covering present and future plans for the Office-o-tron validator project.
* Klaus-Peter Eckert of Fraunhofer FOKUS will present the latest status of the document test library project and other work Fraunhofer is doing to improve interoperability.

Microsoft attempts to control the whole thing, including so-called interoperability. We showed a lot of evidence before [1, 2, 3].

Even in Wikipedia, ODF-hostile content gets injected into the article about ODF by the Microsoft folks, as last shown some days ago. Some references to Microsoft blogs are now being removed, as well as the poison that they have injected.

A more detailed account of how Microsoft subverts Wikipedia (on ODF) can be found in, e.g.:

• Is Microsoft’s AstroTurf Against ODF Still On?
• Microsoft Starts Attacking the ODF Alliance, Sends Paid Wikipedia Editors to ODF Article (Updated)
• OOXML BRM Convenor (Alex Brown) Joins the Pro-Microsoft Wikipedia Spinners
• Microsoft Folks Rewrite ODF’s History and Build Anti-ODF Social Network
• Fraunhofer Again Lobbies for Microsoft Lock-in
• Microsoft Accused of Anti-ODF Whisper Campaign

Microsoft leads people to confusion, fear, and absorption of disinformation using those people who only pretend to be friends of ODF. Here for instance is a person who was unfortunately led to making a false claim given new software like Androffice. ODF does a lot better than Microsoft would have people believe. █

Summary: Microsoft manages to grab seats in its competitor’s table; Explanation of why CodePlex it to “Open Source” what OOXML is to “open standards”

WE HAVE already shown ISO ODF being stuffed by Microsoft under everyone’s nose [1, 2]. The press did not cover this important issue, unlike last year's obvious indication that Microsoft had hijacked SC34.

In the following new post, figures are being shown to demonstrate the obvious — that ISO got cracked by Microsoft, which then pushed a proprietary format (controlled by Microsoft) down its throat using illegal means. From the conclusions:

I suppose this [OOXML] is “global” in a sense, in the same way one could stage an “International Food Festival” and then have McDonalds show up and contribute a Big Mac from the U.S., a Big Mac from Germany, a Big Mac from the Ivory Coast, a Big Mac from Finland and another Big Mac from Brazil and so on. Certainly, you could claim this was “international”, but you would be laughed right out of the festival if you did.

[...]

Evidently there is no one capable of fixing this. ISO says that domination by a single corporation is not their responsibility, because only NBs vote and each NB determines its own participation rules. But individual NBs also don’t see a problem, because any single one of them only has one Microsoft employee at the meeting. So the NB itself is not necessary stuffed (although that does happens occasionally as well). So by placing Microsoft employees in many NB delegations and putting the overflow into the Ecma delegation, Microsoft can still dominate the ISO committee and not trigger a rule violation in ISO or in any NB.

This is essentially how Microsoft hacked ISO. Now that the flaw has been demonstrated, any large international corporation with sufficient funds and interest can exploit it as well. So long as the rules remain as they are, ISO is vulnerable. ISO defends this criticism by pointing out what good work they’ve done in the past, and how they rarely have problems of this kind before. But this shows little appreciation for the nature of the problem which have been demonstrated. It is like arguing that a newly discovered (though long latent) security flaw in an operating system is insignificant because you’ve never had an attack before now. Of course, this misses the point entirely. Once the vulnerability is known and publicly exploited, you’re living on borrowed time until you can secure the system. Today ISO is living on borrowed time and is very close to becoming a Microsoft-infested zombie server.

The author, Rob Weir, is already being heckled by Microsoft employees and their MVPs, who try to change the topic of discussion because defending corruption is so much more difficult. Sadly, Weir is perhaps too shy to admit that he is not happy with the company that attacked ODF so viciously and now forks it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] sitting on the ODF table.

To repeat an old analogical expression, Microsoft wants to stick its finger in all the pies, including Linux and Free software (or “open source”) where it is doing the same type of routine.

Microsoft and its army of partners have their limits though. They did not manage to stuff OSI like they did stuff ISO, so they created their own separate entity [1, 2, 3, 4], akin to OOXML. Jason Brooks, writing on the subject in his latest column, thinks that this could lead to flames.

For its part, the FSF has spent the summer alternately blasting individuals and groups for and warning them against using or adopting technologies distributed or even invented by Microsoft. For instance, the FSF this summer launched a Website devoted to cataloging the “sins” of Windows 7 and has weighed in on multiple occasions as to why, despite what Microsoft promises, no open-source developer should code in Microsoft’s C#.

As Groklaw showed a few days ago, Novell is a big part of this problem [1, 2]. Groklaw received flak for saying so. The Mono-Nono Web site adds:

For one thing, PJ has a bit of experience dealing with such nastiness. The irony of course is that she gained it while investigating SCOs attacks on Linux, and will probably be using it for Team Mono and Friends attacks on Freedom now! There’s a certain symmetry to that, I think.

Another thing is that I’ve noticed that the pro-Mono attacks are looking a bit faded lately.

I guess that’s what happens when you keep attacking honest people truly interested in Freedom and your basic weapons are ad hominem and disinformation.

Matthew Aslett makes the following brow-raising statement:

Microsoft is no different from any other proprietary vendor in this regard. The like sof IBM and Oracle and SAP have all had to find their own ways of coexisting with FOSS.

This is not so accurate. Microsoft is unique for the reason shown below (which still applies). █

“Microsoft is unique among proprietary software companies: they are the only ones who have actively tried to kill Open Source and Free Software. It’s not often someone wants to be your friend after trying to kill you for ten years, but such change is cause for suspicion.”

–Bradley M. Kuhn (SFLC)

ON SATURDAY we wrote about how Microsoft had put ODF under more control outside OASIS. Trips to Seattle tend to have this effect. Someone has just leaked to us the official SC34 Bellevue Plenary Report (there is also Seattle in there), which ought to have been public information had ISO actually been as transparent as it should be. Maybe it is already available somewhere, but we failed to find it.

ISO’s take on software patents is different from that of OASIS, so the report is passed around with this observation:

OPEN ISSUE: What is the IP status of Defect Reports and other communications submitted to OASIS via the TC liaison member? OASIS generally operates a slightly different IP policy to JTC 1. (Rob Weir to report back)

Microsoft has XML patents that are land mines and weapons of FUD. We wrote about this in:

• Microsoft ‘Patents’ ODF Whilst Also Harming It
• Patents Roundup: OASIS Takes Stance Against Software Patents, Microsoft Loses Again
• XML Patents, Microsoft Aggression, and ODF Hostility
• Microsoft’s ‘ODF Patent’ as Vacuous as Its Promise of Interoperability
• Reader’s Article: The Microsoft Patent Threat to ODF
• On Microsoft’s Software Patents and ODF Fragmentation

Here is another reason for concern:

NB experts will be encouraged to participate in the responsible SC 34 WG, and to bring their ideas for amendment/revision to the WG, so that these can be discussed with the OASIS ODF TC and any agreed technical work can then be initiated in the ODF TC and worked on jointly by ODF TC and SC 34 experts, including the NB experts.

But SC34 is already a Microsoft-stuffed panel [1, 2]. They should be kept away from ODF. This group is given too much control over ODF, e.g.:

4. That SC 34 request OASIS to forward to SC 34 all necessary contributions to enable a subdivision of the project to align with ODF v1.1.

There is also this:

Recommendation to SC 34 Plenary

1. That SC 34 establish a new Working Group as follows:

Title: OpenDocument Format
Scope and Terms of reference: All SC 34 projects and activities relating to the maintenance of ISO/IEC 26300 OpenDocument Format.

Collaboration with the OASIS ODF TC in the maintenance of and other work exclusively related to ISO/IEC 26300, in accordance with the joint maintenance principles and procedures agreed by OASIS and JTC 1 (documents N 1148 and N 1149). This includes all projects and activities related to ISO/IEC 26300 previously carried out by WG 1 and Ad Hoc Group 3.

The rest is in the 25-page document [PDF], which shows how the regrettable decision came about. █

Summary: OpenDocument Format (ODF) falls further into the hands of the already-corrupted ISO after a meeting that Microsoft was hosting

THE previous post showed that ODF is gaining (there is a Japanese translation in progress, which looks like this), but there is one company standing in the way, as always. Lacking desire to inter-operate with ODF [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] (Office 2010 will still lack proper ODF support), Microsoft tries to bring this debate closer to home, as we last mentioned here. The plenary meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 is taking place in Bellevue or Seattle, as planned all along. It’s almost as if Microsoft is to be the centre of ODF this time around and those in attendance include Microsoft folks like Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21], who is delighted to “create a new working group (WG 6) dedicated to servicing its responsibilities for #ODF maintenance.” Jomar Silva might become a member, but who else?

It sure sounds like that dreaded attempt of ISO/Microsoft to take control of ODF, at the expense of OASIS. SC34 is already stuffed with Microsoft people [1, 2], most of whom have their interests disguised. It’s worth remembering that this is an SC34 meeting near Microsoft which is responsible for everything and it’s Microsoft employees who seem most pleased. Henrion from FFII is rightly angry, arguing that one should “Scrap ISO. They have a stupid system of physical meetings around the planet. I don´t have the money to travel to such meetings.”

This SC34 meeting at Microsoft sure seems to have served as a stepping stone in the hijack of ODF, which Groklaw warned about one year ago. Simon Phipps from Sun is seemingly unhappy. He asks Brown (Microsoft mole and OOXML convenor): “What responsibility does SC34 have for ODF beyond forwarding mail to OASIS?” Later he tells a Microsoft employee: “SC34’s role in ODF maintenance probably matches the Linux Foundation’s role in Windows maintenance following your kernel code drop”

Phipps is referring to this incident, which we last mentioned here. Rob Weir just posts this Q&A, leaving no clear indication of how he feels about this development, into which he could as well be pressured. “Rob Weir tells more than we probably want to know,” argues Glyn Moody.

Question: So who owns ODF maintenance?

Rob: The OASIS ODF TC owns the maintenance of the OASIS ODF standard, and WG6 will own this activity for the equivalent ISO/IEC text. However, neither committee has absolute freedom of action, both being governed by applicable procedural rules of their parent organizations, as well as various joint agreements between OASIS and JTC1.

Given the corruption at ISO [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], is this a safe bet? How did it come about and whose proposal was it?

NZOSS has also just reminded the world of XML and OOXML patents from Microsoft. This is a subject that we wrote about in:

• Microsoft ‘Patents’ ODF Whilst Also Harming It
• Patents Roundup: OASIS Takes Stance Against Software Patents, Microsoft Loses Again
• XML Patents, Microsoft Aggression, and ODF Hostility
• Microsoft’s ‘ODF Patent’ as Vacuous as Its Promise of Interoperability
• Reader’s Article: The Microsoft Patent Threat to ODF
• On Microsoft’s Software Patents and ODF Fragmentation

Here is a new video from NZOSS (as Ogg Theora or Flash):

Direct link

Charles from the OpenOffice.org community had this to say:

I remember that a while ago, as I was attending a heated debate on the (in)famous standardization of OOXML. As we were arguing with Microsoft on some specification details, I happened to state all aloud that when it came to this level of security (the topic at hand was security), I had my concerns about the encryption algorithms used by the specification but that in a general sense, security relied much more on the application using the format and the underlying operating system’s level of security. I went on to say that for the specific portion of the draft we were studying, it was perhaps not necessary to waste time in fruitless discussion topics including the behavior of OOXML documents in a computer undergoing a nuclear attack and being stored on a computer facing a zero-day exploit at the same time.

The response from one of the Microsoft spokesperson (I’m coining the term spokesperson, because that’s what most of them were) was a mix of surprise and sarcasm: “Everything happens, today you agreed with us!”. And indeed, I agreed that we should continue to parse the 6000 pages-long draft.

[...]

First, one has to realize that what happened with Novell was a serious attack against free and open source software, but although it was serious, it never really had any major impact on the community itself. What I mean by this is not that it did not have any real and damageable impact on IT companies or OEMs that ended up signing phony IPR deals with Microsoft. I mean by this that when you step back, you end up realizing that even the divide it caused inside the community is not that big. There is no one “Novell Community” and one “FSF Community”. That simply never existed except perhaps in the mind of some Mono architects. Even the Ximian bunch is very much on its own; influential because of monthly salaries, and time to devout to their pet projects and an historical ties to Gnome. But aside this, the impact of the Novell agreement with Microsoft did not create the “grand schism” many feared or wished at that time.

[...]

That is, I believe, the essence of the Codeplex foundation that is described here. Forget the code for a moment, and you might come to the conclusion that either Microsoft wants to impose its views on patents and copyrights, or it genuinely wants to have a fruitful conversation with the free and open source software community. The former is only surprising as it shows a different approach, but if that’s what they’re looking to achieve I am afraid that unless this foundation comes out with the most radically innovative ideas in the field of IPR, it will fail, for the first reason I outlined much above: Nobody will follow them, except people and constituencies who have an economic incentive to do that. What is left, then, if not the latter hypothesis? Interesting times are ahead of us in this case.

Microsoft’s CodePlex Foundation is still seen as undesirable by the Free software community. It’s a subject we covered in:

• OIN Receives Thanks from Many, CodePlex Foundation Receives Thumbs-Down from Many
• Miguel de Icaza Joins Microsoft
• Why Microsoft’s CodePlex Foundation is a Promoter of Proprietary Software
• Microsoft Runs Away from the Press After Trying to Have GNU/Linux Sued by Proxy
• CodePlex Foundation Loves Software Patents and What MonoTouch Means to Microsoft
• Microsoft Turncoat Quits

The next few posts will carry on along the same theme. Microsoft’s bear hugs are merely attempts to take control of its very own opposition, thus diffusing it. █

Summary: New ODF Alliance member, more vendor support, and another, more positive way to view the i4i ruling

EARLIER in the week we wrote about a Fraunhofer study which seemed rather biased. As Glyn Moody put it, there “seems there’s some kind of Microsoft involvement.”

This study addressed and even defended the existence of multiple standards that achieve more or less the same things; one is based on the proprietary format (and platform) of a company that bribed people and corrupted an international standards body in order to call it a “standard”, whereas the other is created and backed by many organisations, universities, and governments. Needless to say, the former is Microsoft’s OOXML and the latter is ODF.

There is news right now about the ODF Alliance growing even larger thanks to the addition of Spotlight Cameroun. In its formal announcement, Spotlight Cameroun states:

OpenDocument Format (ODF) is the only open standard for office applications, and it is completely vendor neutral.

Malaysia and Brazil are among the prominent supporters of ODF (at a national level) and over in Brazil we now find more evidence of this. In addition, IDG News Service reveals that TextEdit has ODF support, which is wonderful news. It has been the case for quite some time, but we’ve just learned that TextEdit will soon support saving as ODF, which is important progress.

The most recent version of TextEdit, included with OS X Leopard, can open and edit files in rich text format (.rtf), Microsoft’s old and new Word formats (.doc and .docx), and the OpenDocument format (.odt) used by OpenOffice.

TextEdit is quite widely used, so it’s another notable win for ODF.

In previous posts about i4i [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] we mentioned the fact that ODF FUD had arrived from the Burton and Gartner groups, both of which work with Microsoft. Sadly enough, even after Burton and Gartner were proven wrong, a few people are adding harmful noise via Twitter by linking to Asay’s misinformed post and adding remarks like this: “Of course i4i says ODF doesn’t infringe, they have no money..”

No, it’s because it’s technically not infringing. Such remarks are worth correcting as they only encourage uncertainty and doubt. The real patent danger to ODF is Microsoft, not i4i. See for example:

• Signs That Microsoft Might Prepare for ‘Patent Terror’ Against Rival Office Suites
• Microsoft’s OOXML Patents, Apple’s Endorsement, and the Rise of OpenOffice.org
• Microsoft Keeps Trying to Inject Software Patents Into ODF and Other Standards
• Microsoft ‘Patents’ ODF Whilst Also Harming It
• Microsoft Hostility Towards XML Expands to Hostility Towards HTML
• Patents Roundup: OASIS Takes Stance Against Software Patents, Microsoft Loses Again
• XML Patents, Microsoft Aggression, and ODF Hostility
• Microsoft’s ‘ODF Patent’ as Vacuous as Its Promise of Interoperability
• Reader’s Article: The Microsoft Patent Threat to ODF
• On Microsoft’s Software Patents and ODF Fragmentation

Regarding the i4i case itself, here is another smoking gun:

Microsoft embarrassed by new XML patent email

[...]

“We saw [i4i's products] some time ago, and met its creators,” said Sawicki in the Jan. 23, 2003, e-mail. “Word 11 will make it obsolete. It looks great for XP though.” Word 11 was the in-development code name for what was eventually dubbed Word 2003.

The infringing part is custom XML, as the following article quotes:

Specifically, Microsoft must refrain from “selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML, .DOCX or .DOCM file (containing custom XML),” the injunction states.

Contrary to Microsoft’s sensationalist defense, the world will be fine without Word. From FCW:

Imagine a world without Word

[...]

Microsoft Word, though popular, is not the exclusive word-processing software of the federal government. For example, the Joint Forces Command is using OpenOffice for a small experimental project, said Kathleen Jabs, a spokeswoman at the command.

The i4i case is another massive opportunity for ODF (and ODF-compliant software) to gain dominance. It is good news to open standards, not just to Free software, to which ODF is a prerequisite but not the other way around. █

“Microsoft sees what’s coming. Things like Word and Excel sort of like a drug now getting ready to go generic.”

–Market Watch

Summary: Microsoft’s leap year bug-as-a-standard is back; more thoughts on the Word ban, which is challenged by Microsoft

AS we noted last week, OOXML has already 800+ pages of documented bugs. Microsoft and the Microsoft-dominated working group/s seemingly want to have some more bugs. Norbert Bollow, the man behind OpenISO, has the details.

2009-08-12: The ISO/IEC Working Group on OOXML Wants to Unfix the Leap-Year Bug and Related Date-and-Time Problems.

[...]

What can be done?
Obviously, if you’re involved in your national mirror committee for ISO/IEC JTC1, you can seek to convince it or the relevant subcommittee that 29500-4 / DCOR 1 should be disapproved. The international deadline for this ballot is 2009-11-04; the national member bodies of ISO will generally have deadlines in October by when the concerned committees mus make their decisions. While you’re at it, you’ll also be able to argue for disapproval of 29500-4 / FPDAM 1 (for related but different reasons, I’ll explain about that in one of my next blog postings.)

If you’re working for a software company and it is not yet active in the appropriate national standardization organization, you should probably become active to make sure that the emerging body of international standards in the field of IT isn’t going to get in the way of your company’s business interests. This recommendation for getting involved applies even if your company is a small one, or if software development isn’t the firm’s main line of business.

Dana Blankenhorn wrote about Microsoft’s OOXML abuse just a couple of days ago, reminding readers that Microsoft is more ferocious than ever.

While putting it in the way of the weasel, Microsoft is still pushing what amounts to a tax on users of Internet standards. It’s doing this through a definition of “open standards” that would mandate standards bodies to consider patented, protected, proprietary technology on a par with truly open source offerings, and encourage companies to pack standards bodies with paid employees.

[...]

If we learned anything at all from the OOXML debate it should be that any Microsoft victory there was pyrrhic. ODF was able to deliver on its standard long before Microsoft could change its own proprietary scheme to match what the ISO approved.

If their idea was to bury ODF in the corporate user base, Microsoft failed, and at enormous cost, both to its own reputation and that of the ISO standards bodies.

At the same time, Microsoft is accumulating patents on XML. See for example:

• Signs That Microsoft Might Prepare for ‘Patent Terror’ Against Rival Office Suites
• Microsoft’s OOXML Patents, Apple’s Endorsement, and the Rise of OpenOffice.org
• Microsoft Keeps Trying to Inject Software Patents Into ODF and Other Standards
• Microsoft ‘Patents’ ODF Whilst Also Harming It
• Microsoft Hostility Towards XML Expands to Hostility Towards HTML
• Patents Roundup: OASIS Takes Stance Against Software Patents, Microsoft Loses Again
• XML Patents, Microsoft Aggression, and ODF Hostility
• Microsoft’s ‘ODF Patent’ as Vacuous as Its Promise of Interoperability
• Reader’s Article: The Microsoft Patent Threat to ODF
• On Microsoft’s Software Patents and ODF Fragmentation

Carrying on from yesterday's post covering the subject of a lawsuit, here are some more reports about Microsoft Word being banned in the US. As SJVN put it:

It sounds like a joke. But, it’s real and it’s anything but a joke for Microsoft. Judge Leonard Davis, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, has issued an injunction (PDF Link) that “prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML.”

Here is the official press release. TechDirt correctly points out that it won’t stick and Microsoft has already appealed against the ruling. [hat tip: ZiggyFish]

MICROSOFT plans to appeal a ruling by a Texas judge that would ban the software giant from selling its popular Word program in the US.

Groklaw has the documents from the ruling and one reader has given us the following i4i vs. Microsoft opinion:

<http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/i4ivMS-412.pdf>. Some interesting and arrogant quotes from Microsoft emails about the XML editor market. Read from the last two lines of page 39 through the first line of page 41. Best quote is the one in parentheses that ends on page 41.

Can’t believe those guys actually thought they had a prayer of monopolizing the market for low to medium power XML editors, particularly with Word native file support XML read/write filters.

My prediction: Microsoft either wins a stay pending appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or it settles promptly thereafter. Don’t think Microsoft can just remove the code for custom XML schemas embedded in the Microsoft flavor of OOXML overnight. OOXML also serves as the communications protocol between Office and Sharepoint Server, and from there via a conversion to XAML to a bunch of other Microsoft server side Office apps. To boot, Microsoft did the Office 2007 Compatibility Pack, a backport of the Office 2007 native file support APIs modularized with the old API’s replicated in the wrapper. That’s now running in Office 2000, Office XP, Office 2003, and Office 2008 for the Mac. Interesting blog article here by a Softie describing what they did. Rick Shaut, Open XML Converters for Mac Office, Buggin’ My Life Away (7 December 2006), <http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/archive/2006/12/07/open-xml-converters-for-mac-office.aspx>.

So they’ve got this huge mass of apps that are interdependent and really can’t tweak just one of them. To boot, they’ve got institutional customers already dependent on custom XML schemas, not to mention a few developers who’ve created apps with custom XML
dependencies. See e.g., this article by Doug Mahugh describing the custom XML dependency of Mindjet’s round trip interop with MS Word. <http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2006/09/16/758090.aspx>.

Did I mention that Microsoft halting the sale of Word 2007 and 2003 in the U.S. is about as likely as the crack of dawn getting raped and thereby impregnated? Microsoft either wins that stay pending appeal or it settles.

When software patents cause so much trouble, it is made a lot easier to explain why they should be deprecated. █

MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The ‘580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that’s married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.

JUSTICE SCALIA: You can’t patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you?

MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: That’s correct, Justice Scalia.

JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.

MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can’t be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.

Summary: Weak defense from Microsoft regarding OOXML boobytraps; OpenOffice.org still downloaded heavily

OOXML Patents Surface

THIS is a tedious topic that we covered yesterday and also earlier this year in:

• Patents Roundup: OASIS Takes Stance Against Software Patents, Microsoft Loses Again
• XML Patents, Microsoft Aggression, and ODF Hostility
• Microsoft’s ‘ODF Patent’ as Vacuous as Its Promise of Interoperability
• Reader’s Article: The Microsoft Patent Threat to ODF
• On Microsoft’s Software Patents and ODF Fragmentation
• Microsoft ‘Patents’ ODF Whilst Also Harming It

Microsoft’s latest word-processing patent is stirring up discussion even in the news.

The core of US Patent 7,571,169 which Microsoft was granted on August 4th refers to – “A word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML”.

The Microsoft crowd is trying to calm things down by saying:

OOXML is covered by Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise, under which Microsoft promised not prosecute those using, selling, or distributing its implementation of a technology or specification.

As we explained before, the Open Specification Promise is a useless promise, based on the analysis of the SFLC. The Microsoft Community Promise is equally bad.

Some days ago we mentioned how Microsoft was trying to sneak RAND into Free software [1, 2] and The Source has a posting about that too.

Recent statements on “Open” give an interesting insight into Microsoft constancy.

In a recent Computerworld UK blog entry, Glyn Moody takes Microsoft’s Jason Matusox to task for conflating “balance” with “open”. I won’t re-hash the points Mr. Moody makes so read his article too!

Basically, Mr. Matusox laments how Open standards are “overbalanced” in favor of standard implementors, and someone is insisting that standards must have “no IP restrictions”.

Yes, Microsoft wants more software patents in standards, and it wants them to be enforceable even in the EU.

Apple’s Role

Microsoft does not treat Mac users as well as a company should, but it still spreads OOXML to that UNIX platform. Given that Apple has been somewhat of an OOXML ally of Microsoft, the following is noteworthy.

Imagine that, Apple supported Microsoft’s Open XML standardisation. Last week’s Microsoft Office 2008 Service Pack 2 (SP2) release wasn’t so great for Mac Office users, a giant fail. You know, when you have a multibillion office applications business who would dare to test for crossplattform compatibility of file formats before you release the service pack? No one does, and Apple users of the Mac Office were absolutely outraged about Open XML.

ISO’s Role

A couple of days ago we showed how Microsoft was controlling ISO. There is more on that at the <No>OOXML Web site.

OpenOffice.org

In more positive news, the OpenOffice.org team says that version 3.1 of the software has already been downloaded over 20 million times (in 3 months), meaning that OpenOffice.org is downloaded over 6.6 million times per month. It is a staggering pace which does not take into account the exchange of CDs, including GNU/Linux CDs, which typically contain OpenOffice.org out of the box (and in the repositories). Heise has this new article about a collaboration plug-in for OpenOffice 3.1 users

Secure collaboration specialist TeamDrive has released its collaboration plug-in for OpenOffice 3.1 users. The freeware TeamDrive OpenOffice Plug-in allows users to create and share TeamDrive “SharedSpaces” (shared folders) and includes version control. Users can exchange files securely and view version comments or open previous versions of a document.

This ought to show the power of OpenOffice.org, which is often the target of heavy Microsoft FUD. OpenOffice.org — like Mozilla Firefox — thrives in a sea of extensions. █

–Jason Matusow, Microsoft (for background see [1, 2])

Summary: Behind the scenes, Microsoft is trying to promote RAND (for standards) while acquiring more XML patents

YESTERDAY we made the front page of Slashdot, which wrote about Microsoft’s XML patents. Sadly, the editor did not link directly to any of our recent writings that specifically tackle the patent issue, e.g.:

• Microsoft ‘Patents’ ODF Whilst Also Harming It
• Patents Roundup: OASIS Takes Stance Against Software Patents, Microsoft Loses Again
• XML Patents, Microsoft Aggression, and ODF Hostility
• Microsoft’s ‘ODF Patent’ as Vacuous as Its Promise of Interoperability
• Reader’s Article: The Microsoft Patent Threat to ODF
• On Microsoft’s Software Patents and ODF Fragmentation

Slashdot’s summary was as follows:

“Embrace. Extend. Patent. On Tuesday, Microsoft was granted US Patent No. 7,571,169 for its ‘invention’ of the Word-processing document stored in a single XML file that may be manipulated by applications that understand XML. Presumably developers are protected by Microsoft’s ‘covenant not to sue,’ so the biggest question raised by this patent is: How in the world was it granted in light of the 40-year history of document markup languages? Next thing you know, the USPTO will give Microsoft a patent for Providing Emergency Data in XML format. Oops, too late.”

For those who think that Microsoft has no intention of using such patents, see this E-mail from Bill Gates.

Microsoft tries to redefine “open” (again) such that it's inclusive of RAND clauses, i.e. software patents and royalties. The latest attempt from Matusow has not escaped the attention of Glyn Moody, who dissected it and wrote:

The logic here seems to be that there would be an “imbalance” in open standards if it were insisted that patents were excluded – because balance obviously means having standards with and without patents. While it’s true that creates a “balance”, it’s a purely linguistic one; the fact is that patent-encumbered standards requiring licensing fees cannot, by definition, be open. That’s because they do not create level playing fields: there is always one or more players who occupy a privileged position. So the balance is entirely specious.

[...]

Against that background of a standardisation process being bent to breaking point, complaints about the *balance* of open standards ring rather hollow.

Not to mention Microsoft's intimate relationship with ISO.

A few days ago we mentioned the fact that OOXML has over 800 pages of known defects. The <No>OOXML Web site has just located these for sharing publicly.

800 pages of defect for OOXML, here it is. ISO is such a transparent organisation that they are afraid of the web, and the public light of the blogosphere. Here is the leak for you.

Microsoft has resorted to a new methodology of justifying the existence of this highly-defective proprietary format. Apart from Microsoft spinners like Paul Thurrott, coverage came from IDG, which points out that:

Microsoft did not spell out how the file format “ballot” will appear to users, or what choices, other than ODF (Open Document Format), the open-source word processing, spreadsheet and presentation document standard, will be shown.

The above articles say absolutely nothing about Microsoft’s ODF implementation being defective in the sense that it is not interoperable [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

In better news (about ODF) we have:

• ODF Plugfest: Working in Progress

These days a number of organizations and ODF implementors are working together to organize a second ODF Plugfest in parallel with the upcoming OpenOffice.org Con 2009, that will take place in Orvieto (Italy) in November.

• Tables Sprint in Copenhagen

Casper also took the plunge on loading and quite quickly got stuff up and working, and with the commit he did right before I left his apartment, most of the features here should now be loading correctly from ODF.

• Converting OpenOffice files to/from Microsoft Office files

Whatever your choice, there’s a fair chance you’ll be able to enjoy cross-office, cross-platform integration with a high level of accuracy, saving lots of time and trouble in getting the files to open and look the right way. Instead of working hard, you now have a set of tools that will toil for you.

• Office Suites

So what options are available for UNIX/Linux systems? I have found there are six common office/productivity solutions for these platforms with which most of us are already familiar.

• Fight The Empire With Open Source

I have recently been in touch with Novell, the Open Document Format Alliance (ODF Alliance), and some of our local Legislators to find out what kind of movement we have here in the state of Utah and if an Open Standard is possible because ideally I would like to see state agencies step away from the proprietary formats used by Microsoft and Corel and use open formats. Many of our state agencies have been restricted from funding for expensive Microsoft products in support of Open Office. I long for a change that will require State and Local Government to use Open standards, but I realize that a change of this magnitude will take time and patience.

Microsoft is still trying to slow down ODF, to the degree that it can get away with. Microsoft is not a friend of ODF. █

“It’s a Simple Matter of [Microsoft’s] Commercial Interests!“

–Microsoft on OOXML

Summary: More of the incestuous relationship between ISO, Microsoft, and SC34; new Microsoft tricks in the EU

MOST people probably never noticed (or cannot remember) Microsoft paying for an ISO-associated dinner in Korea and paying for the meeting in Norway. It is all just part of a pattern which shows ISO shaking like a feather, dancing to the tune of Microsoft cash.

Microsoft is now organising the next ISO SC34 meeting. Yes, it will all take place in Redmond and shall revolve around Microsoft’s OOXML maintenance.

We already know that SC34 is a mess — a mess which is dominated by Microsoft-faithful folks who are hostile towards ODF. According to the above, convenors now include Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] and Patrick Durusau [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], who have been making comments (and actions) favourable to Microsoft’s proprietary format.

Also see this PDF which provides further details, such as: “For general questions about Westin meeting logistics, or things to do around Seattle, please contact Dave Welsh, dmwelsh@microsoft.com, cell phone +1 206 313 0879.”

How about this: “More hotel options, at different rates, are also available. For more hotel options in the immediate Bellevue area and the Seattle vicinity, please try Live.com.”

Bellevue is where a lot of Microsoft’s core people reside, including its gigantic patent troll.

We have also learned that Microsoft will be the “social host” in the Seattle meetings, hosting the reception, dinner, and so on. How familiar. They will also be organising a DII event (“interop”) to occur the day after the SC34 Plenary. It will take place at Microsoft, which will announce how they intend to support Office 2010 as extensions to OOXML.

The word about Office 2010 has just come out, with this new Microsoft proposal [PDF] that can be found in the company’s Web site (encoded in Microsoft’s proprietary format). There is some initial coverage in OS News, which starts with: “Just when you thought the world couldn’t get any crazier, something happens that makes you move your expectations of the world up a few nothces. We already have to deal with the browser ballot, but that’s not the only ballot Microsoft will deliver. Hold on to your panties, as Microsoft will also offer a file format ballot in Microsoft Office 2010. On a happier note, Microsoft makes a whole load of promises to the EU about opening up technologies and file formats.”

Oiaohm says that it’s getting “even worse [as] Microsoft seems to be out to avoid the EU regulators.”

ThistleWeb argues that Microsoft’s thinking is that people will be allowed to “pick from a working Microsoft format, or a (supposedly working) broken ODF”. Microsoft never implemented ODF properly, after all [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

“[M]aybe they’ve finally, reluctantly seen the writing on the wall, that the EU are gonna keep hammering them on case after case, with fine after fine…”
      –ThistleWebAs Georg Greve (FSFE) put it a few days ago, “Microsoft [is] planning to freeze ODF at “broken useless” level by blocking updates at ISO? Seems quite possible according to [URL]”

The above refers to Microsoft wanting to impose RAND on Free software.

Oiaohm adds: “Microsoft is being forced to come into line with ODF 1.2 as well, but the issue is that [it's mandatory]. If it’s done the wrong, way you could have produced document hell in a business.”

ThistleWeb responds by hypothesising that “maybe they’ve finally, reluctantly seen the writing on the wall, that the EU are gonna keep hammering them on case after case, with fine after fine [...] that they’re now reluctantly trying to placate the EU [...] each new fine, is another chunk of cash.”

“Or maybe they are running out of money to resist,” argues Oiaohm. Microsoft is already borrowing money. █

Summary: ECMA is done with Microsoft XPS, time to shove it down ISO’s throat

LAST YEAR we warned that Microsoft would attempt to repeat something like the OOXML fiasco, this time for a static document format. This was also alluded to in [1, 2, 3].

“It is Microsoft’s proprietary, inferior duplicate of PDF — just another proprietary format in Microsoft’s control.”Now that ECMA, a body that stamps virtually anything provided sufficient payments, is done with XPS (press release from this week), it is expected that Microsoft will try to ram it down ISO’s throat. It is Microsoft’s proprietary, inferior duplicate of PDF — just another proprietary format in Microsoft’s control. As David Gerard puts it, “Microsoft tries to push completely superfluous garbage through ECMA in preparation for ISO.”

Over at Wikipedia, the Microsoft proponents are pushing opinions of Microsoft as facts (see edit: “opinion was stated as fact”) and there are more corrections that annul the latest deeds of Ghettoblaster et al. It is worth keeping an eye on Microsoft's intervention in Wikipedia because of whisper campaigns. █

From the Campaign for Document Freedom

–Steve Pepper

Summary: Norway embraces ODF and maybe Ogg too; ODF in general spreads rapidly

NOT so long ago it was Hungary that found the light and now it is Norway, which struggled against Microsoft corruption [1, 2]. It’s truly fascinating how deep it may run. Leif Lodahl from Denmark was among the first people to mention this latest development (as we already did yesterday thanks to a pointer from a reader).

The Norwegian government has made a clear statement in a new catalog covering data standards of various purposes.

According to some folks in Twitter, Ogg may be part of this policy in Norway. This is timely because of Microsoft’s bad attitude not only towards Ogg but against <audio> and <video> in general. Microsoft talks about patents, shows apathy, and general disinterest (follow the threads). It acts as a barrier because it tries spreading Windows Media Player and Silver Lie all over the Web. Watch this report.

Mozilla supports HTML 5 video, Microsoft doesn’t yet but without a codec specified, does it matter?

In IDG Norway we also find this UK report about BECTA doing it with Microsoft again, trying to find excuses to embellish and justify deals that turn all British kids into Microsoft customers. Watch this deceptive statement:

Microsoft also provides support in Office 2007 for the Open Document Format (ODF) file format, a move that Becta has acknowledged.

Microsoft doesn’t. It ruins ODF interoperability with MSODF [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and even the ODF Alliance has formally stated that this is the case. BECTA does not care about the ODF Alliance though; BECTA is feeling warm in the same bed as Microsoft, as always [1, 2, 3, 4].

Another ugly story about document standards came from India where this debate continues. Notice how Novell is listed as a backer of OOXML in the Business Standard (Novell is listed on Microsoft’s side):

Incidentally, there has never been a more intense global industry debate over ‘open standards’. On the one hand is Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) file format backed by Apple, Novell, Wipro, Infosys, TCS, and Nasscom. On the other is the Open Document Format (ODF), supported by the likes of IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, Google, the Department of Information Technology (DIT), National Informatics Centre (NIC), CDAC, IIT-Mumbai and IIM-Ahmedabad.

India recently maintained its earlier stance of “No” to the software major’s OOXML (which has been accepted by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) as an international standard).

ODF proponents oppose OOXML on the grounds that “multiple standards” are not good, while Microsoft argues that OOXML — a recognised standard by ECMA International too — is a response to evolving technology formats in line with continual evolving technology systems. The debate appears to be a proxy for product competition in the marketplace, argue opponents. It is significant, in part, because it will influence the future success of Microsoft Office — one of Microsoft’s largest and most profitable product families.

Governments are wary of holding digital data in proprietary formats, which could make them hostage to a software vendor. States such as Delhi, Kerala and others from the North-East are heavy adopters of ODF file formats which are open and free (excluding maintenance and support).

ODF is still being maintained by OASIS, which was not corrupted like ISO. There is a new OASIS board introduced, hopefully without negative influence. Time will tell.

Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone who voted for me, and all of my supporters, inside and outside the OASIS who were kind enough to dedicate time and effort to this project. Next time will be better and I look forward working with all you again.

In other ODF news, here is another company that supports it.

3BClean scrubs the metadata from Microsoft Office (Word, Excel and PowerPoint) files, Open Document Format (ODF) files, as well as generating PDFs.

Another new tidbit:

Open Document Format (ODF) has achieved growing acceptance as the document format of choice for governments around the world, less than six months after its adoption as an international standard.

Microsoft’s fight to retain vendor lock-in on documents is far from over. No product brings Microsoft’s home as much bacon as Office and Microsoft knows no ethical boundaries. █

“37 letters with exactly the same words. Some of the senders didn’t even care to remove the ‘Type company name here’ text.


Simular letters has been circulating in Denmark as an e-mail from the Danish MD Jørgen Bardenfleth to customers and business partners.


I call it fraud, cheating and disgusting. If I wasn’t anti-Microsoft before, I am now. Disgusting !”

–Leif Lodahl