decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Educating David Coursey
Friday, January 06 2006 @ 04:22 AM EST

David Coursey's latest column, "Quinn's Actions Snub His Employer", tells me that he still doesn't quite understand the Massachusetts decision to go with ODF, so I'd like to help him out. Here's how his column begins:
Opinion: When he tried to tell the people of Massachusetts what file format they should use, the state's CIO was forgetting who works for whom. ...

I still find myself wondering: Why did the Massachusetts state CIO believe it was his job to tell the people of Massachusetts what file format they should use?

Evidently, Coursey hasn't yet read the ITD FAQ on the Final ETRM Version 3.5 Open Document Format Standard. So I'll reproduce some of the pertinent material from the FAQ, as needed to help him with his confusion. But here's the first hint: the people of Massachusetts don't have to save their documents in ODF and Peter Quinn never told them to. Here's a bit from the FAQ:

The Final ETRM Version 3.5 applies only to the Executive Department, and then only to documents created by the Executive Department. Implementation plans will take into account the need to maintain interoperability through the use of a variety of acceptable formats.   

That's clear, don't you think?

There's more, from the FAQ:

QUESTION:    If the Final ETRM V. 3.5 is adopted, won’t state   agencies need to work with private sector organizations and citizens on a case-by-case basis to work out ways to convert documents back and forth and to troubleshoot problems?  The impact of this process on critical agencies like those within the Executive Office of Human Services who depend on the interoperability of their respective IT systems with other branches of state government, particularly the judicial and public safety sectors, will be unacceptable.  

ANSWER: The Final ETRM V. 3.5 does not apply to documents that the Executive Department receives from external entities. Agencies outside the Executive Department with which EOHHS does business are not subject to Final ETRM V. 3.5. Current data exchanges between EOHHS and its partners outside of EOHHS will not be affected by the Final ETRM 3.5 Data Formats section because the Open Document Format standard applies only to office documents, not to pure data exchange between systems. To the extent to which agencies exchange documents created using office applications with outside agencies, ITD understands that there can be no cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to implementing the Final ETRM Version 3.5. Each agency will create its own implementation plan taking into account the possibilities and limitations of its communications with outside parties.

   QUESTION: What impact do these changes have on the vendors who currently do business with agencies by exchanging and submitting documents to us using MS office tools? Are there additional challenges we place on customers and clients who must manage their business with us one way and with other clients in a different way?

  ANSWER: Because under the Final Version 3.5 agencies will be able to continue using their current MS Office applications, as long as they use methods to save documents in Open Document Format, this should not be an issue. And the Final ETRM applies only to documents that agencies create and save, not to documents they receive from third parties.  

Here's Coursey's next issue:

Why should the state select a format for storing state documents that is different from what a huge majority of its citizens are already using? And which the state itself already uses? Of does that improve access to state information?

Put another way: Is it the responsibility of citizens to change what they're doing for the convenience of the government? Or should government seek to meet the needs of the largest number of its citizens?

Rather than adopt a single format for the distribution of documents, governments should support multiple formats or at least provide some means of converting from whatever format the state uses to whatever the citizen is using.

And here's the answer, from the FAQ:

QUESTION: Why are you making agencies deploy a single office product? Doesn’t state procurement law require competition among vendors, which you will foreclose?  

ANSWER: The Final ETRM Version 3.5 does not require that agencies use only one office product. To the contrary, it offers agencies many choices. Agencies may choose to retain their existing MS Office licenses, as long as they use a method to save documents in Open Document Format. They may also use one of the many office tools that support Open Document Format in native format--- OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice, Abiword, eZ publish, IBM Workplace, Knomos case management, Scribus DTP, TextMaker and Visioo Writer. Because the Open Document Format is an open standard, it increases the vendor pool available to state agencies by encouraging and permitting vendors not already in this field to develop products that support the standard.    Adoption of the Final ETRM Version 3.5 will greatly increase competition among vendors for the sale of office applications to agencies....

 QUESTION: Where does ITD get authority to issue a set of standards like Final ETRM Version 3.5?

  ANSWER:   ITD is authorized   under its enabling legislation, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 7, sec. 4A(d), and under the Massachusetts Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 110G, s. 17, to set standards for electronic documents created by Executive Department agencies and to determine “whether, the extent to which and the manner by which” each Executive Department agency creates, maintains and preserves electronic records”....  

   QUESTION: Many state agencies currently rely on Microsoft Office (hereinafter “MS Office”). Adoption of the Final ETRM Version 3.5 could cause difficulty in daily office function. How will agencies share documents smoothly with other agencies, municipalities, citizens, businesses, and other government agencies?  

  ANSWER: the   Final ETRM V. 3.5   applies only to documents created by Executive Department agencies. It does not require that citizens, businesses, and other governments use open document format in communicating with the Executive Department. The Final ETRM V. 3.5 permits agencies to keep their existing MS licenses as long as the software supporting them includes a method for saving documents in Open Document Format. Implementation plans will take into account the need to maintain interoperability through the use of a variety of acceptable formats.   

It's no wonder Quinn decided he'd had enough. It's bad enough to have real flaws aired in public. But when folks get things so wrong, it must be infuriating. And everything Coursey complains about was answered in this FAQ, which has been available for months. What is the use of an opinion, if it isn't based on facts?

Coursey suggests that the public should have PDF documents provided to them. That's fine, and PDF is one of the formats that the MA executive department agencies can use. But there are sometimes documents that need to be worked on by more than one person, and PDF isn't ideal for that kind of editing.

ODF is an archiving format. It's for internal use. The FAQ is clear that no citizen is to be burdened with any interoperability issues, and so it seems likely that if a citizen needs a document, it will be provided as PDF. It seems logical to me that when citizens are provided documents, they will be in PDF format precisely because no government is going to provide official documents in a format that can be edited. Is this hard to grasp?

Finally, Coursey states something rather odd, and it's precisely here that Microsoft's train runs off the rails:

Microsoft is here, and as the overwhelming choice of customers, it gets to make certain decisions, file formats being one of them

First, the thing about being a monopoly is that people lack a choice, so it's a stretch to say people have chosen it. Try to buy a computer without Microsoft's operating system. Second, Microsoft doesn't get to tell governments what file formats to use. Coursey asks on what authority Quinn chose a file format for government use in executive agencies. There is statutory authority for that, actually, as the FAQ showed. But Microsoft has no such authority, and it's extraordinary that anyone would suggest that one of the perks of being a monopolist is that you get to tell governments what to do and what file formats to use. Has Microsoft forgotten who works for whom?

As Quinn's previous boss, Eric Kriss, mentioned to Microsoft and others at a public meeting a while back, sovereignty is the issue. Sovereignty means that governments get to decide what they want in the way of software, and it is up to software vendors to meet their needs, not to tell them that they should not want what they want. And what Massachusetts has said is it wants open formats, open standards. They are not interested in a single-vendor format, precisely because access is the issue, and if Microsoft goes out of business, or changes its formats -- and according to Coursey, they have that right -- then what happens? Here's the last snip from the FAQ:

 QUESTION: Why are you adopting this format when current formats are reasonably available to those making public records and other document requests?

  ANSWER:   Ease of access to electronic records created in proprietary formats is limited in time. Once the proprietary vendor abandons a particular version of an application or format, documents created and formatted in those applications and formats may become inaccessible to all readers.    The proprietary formats supported by our current office applications may place a permanent lock on future access.

Hopefully, reading this material will be helpful, and his next column will reflect these facts. No charge. This is a free service. Research is what we do, and we enjoy sharing.


  


Educating David Coursey | 202 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Kerrecktions ear
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 04:58 AM EST
In case they might be needed.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Stuff
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 04:59 AM EST
To keep things neat and tidy.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can we educate David Coursey?
Authored by: phantom21 on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 05:01 AM EST
Mr Coursey may not be educable in situations like this. In his own discourse he
shows his lack of comprehension when he at one point hints that the result of
the state's decision limits choice as to what office product they may use, then
says the state should use only MS Office because they already are.

You can't have it both ways. If you choose the proprietary product, you ARE
limiting choice. If you use a standard format, you are opening up choice to
other software products. Since he can't seem to see this in his own writings, I
have to question whether he is truly capable of understanding the difference,
hence his lack of being educable.

Unless, of course, his writings mean he had an agenda, which puts other blinders
on his eyse and thoughts. Perhaps blinders put there by a commercial master?

I'm sorry, MS woudn't do such a thing.

My bad for evening considering that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The sad futility of it all
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 05:07 AM EST
Once David Coursey wrote provocative and interesting pieces. Somewhere along the
road the world changed, either I learnt more or journalists such as he got
lazier, or maybe a bit of both. It is easier to comment on the headlines than to
read the story and do some research. The return per story has probably fallen so
comment writers need to write more to earn the same.
In this information rich world it should be possible for leader writers and
politicians to be properly informed, but unfortunately it appears that they use
the resources less than their predecessors used what was available to them.
Maybe in time they will work out that lies and half truths are now almost
certain to be exposed almost before it has left their lips or keyboard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: sailfish on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 05:12 AM EST
Crikey! I'm not having any problems understanding 'ODF' and I'm a Truck Driver
!!
(ozy ozy ozy oi oi oi......etc etc)

ok ok I can install my own Linux system and kinda understand kernel's and stuff
but I also 'RTFM', so, I am having problems understanding where these sort's of
blokes come from.......Please explain?

Has anyone tried belting the information into these fella's with a
"cricket" bat?? (aussie 'bat and ball' game ;0) )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 05:51 AM EST
I think even the editors of e-week knows that Coursey is way off-base.

They've put a prominent link, half way through Coursey's text to a completely
opposing view by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. Props to them for balance.

Vaughan-Nichols stops short of actually saying that the public officials and the
Boston Globe, who came out of the woodwork when Microsoft got upset, were bought
and paid for.

But even the uninitiated could easily join the dots.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paraphrasing David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 06:23 AM EST
"Since the majority of people choose to use petrol powered vehicles, why
should effort be expended researching alternative fuel sources?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 06:49 AM EST
The education process might actually be working. Didn't Coursey in a previous
article question why Massachusetts had the right to force people to use a
particular open source product? (see
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051230204255532&query=coursey) In
this latest article, he at least seems to understand that ODF is a format and
not the software itself; and which could, in theory, be implemented by MS quite
easily if they wanted to.

I guess it's a step forward, but there's still a way to go. Still, his articles
present a wonderful opportunity to clarify outstanding issues that may occur to
skeptics. PJ and various contributors have the chance to respond to the issues
he raises, hopefully dragging them into the light of reason where they can be
rationally examined. The alternative is to let them fester underground, extant
and unchallenged.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating Everybody
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 07:02 AM EST
The file format that 'everybody' uses is Microsoft .doc

Most users probably found that the combination of Windows 2000 and Office 2000
was 'good enough' for their needs. Even if they have to replace their computer,
and thus have XP foisted upon them, they are unlikely to 'upgrade' their
expensive office suite which will install perfectly well on the new system.

Microsoft have produced a new file format, Office 2003 XML, but how many people
actually use it? If you send a file in this format, the chances are the
recipient cannot read it.

Thus when people talk of the 'existing, standard, format' they mean Microsoft
.doc - of course, this is a Microsoft secret code which nobody has been able to
crack satisfactorily.

This gives the FUD merchants a golden opportunity. They can talk about 'the
standard format' and mean any of three different ones, they can even mix them in
the same sentence.

Format 1) .doc (many dialects) - defined by the software that produces it.

Format 2) Office 2003 XML - Microsoft claim that this is defined for use by
third parties and they claim that they will not sue you for using it*

*Offer subject to conditions

Format 3) Office 12 Open XML - Does not actually exist (certainly not in its
final form) - User base: zero

I hate the way Microsoft and their hirelings talk. Even if you know that you are
being fed erroneous data, they put it in such a way that even an expert is left
feeling that they cannot contradict because the spurious information is put in
an ambiguous way. Thus if you take it the way that the unwashed masses are
supposed to take it, you are showing your ignorance. If you take it the way that
you know to be correct, then you have done nothing to prevent the unwashed from
being misled.

I do not suppose anyone on Groklaw is taken in by David Coursey, even for a
second. I have been reading about processing Urdu text - a language I do not
speak and one that is very poorly supported. The information that comes from
Microsoft, and from those indebted to them, is so subtle; I am sure it is
written to mislead but where to line is to be drawn between the obviously useful
information and the FUD? This needs a wiser man than me. Any wiser men out
there?

Alan(UK)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Add 'm to the list of shills?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 07:04 AM EST
Is it too soon to add him to the list of
Micro$oft shills, sharing the company of
notorious reporters like R. Enderle, L.
Didio and <hmmm forgot his name> ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 07:55 AM EST
This Coursey sounds like we have a new Enderle and Didio on the
block.

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Generic David Coursey Column
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 08:08 AM EST
Hey, everybody!

The great thing about this generic column is you'll never need to read another
one. So anytime he has something new, jump to this instead....

"My name is David Coursey. Whether by coincidence or design, I am an
active supporter of Microsoft. I will seize on any fact or sometimes any idea
if it can somehow be made into an endorsement of Microsoft. So save yourselves
the trouble of reading my opinion. Just go with MS."

I have to admit, I'm a bit amused by the pretzel logic he goes through. It's
like watching a bad comedian tell a five minute joke just to get to a lame
punchline--the fact that he got there is his prize, not the audience's
reaction.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

"... tell the people of Massachusetts what file format they should use?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 08:57 AM EST
I totally agree with him. I should be able to communicate with the government
any way I want. For instance, I should be able to submit my income tax returns
on cuneiform tablets.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey - A Doomed Effort
Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 09:14 AM EST
I started out thinking that Mr. Coursey was merely an ignorant bumpkin, too lazy to thoroughly understand the issue he writes about. That's a very harsh thing to say about someone, but he clearly fails to understand the issue, and that's just not a difficult task for one of normal intelligence and open mind.

Then I read his statement that Microsoft is here, and as the overwhelming choice of customers, it gets to make certain decisions, file formats being one of them, and suddenly it all became clear. David Coursey is not (or at least not just) a fool; he's a Microsoft shill. The proposition that MS gets to decide the file formats used by public agencies because it has near-monopoly market share is not just muddle-headed, it is totally incompatible with ANY reasonable understanding of this issue. Ergo, Mr. Coursey has an agenda to support Microsoft regardless of the facts of the case. Mind closed, no need to bother him with the facts.

Of course, while informing him is pointless, informing the rest of the world about his shilliness is most relevant.

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

True arrogance...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 09:15 AM EST
"In summary, I think it was arrogant for a state department head to think he could force people to use a particular document format—one they don't use and their applications won't support—if they want to interact with their government." --David Coursey (my emphasis)

The true arrogance is a government body forcing people to use a product supplied only by a convicted monopolist, that only runs on a select handful of platforms (at the discression of the monopolist), and has an encumbered fileformat that not just anybody can implement and do with as they please.

-gumnos



[ Reply to This | # ]

Quoting
Authored by: Matt C on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 09:27 AM EST
"I understand that isn't how the open-source community wants the world to be, but it is the world as it exists."

I liked in Contact when Tom Skerritt said basically this and that lady from Silence of the Lambs said:

"I always thought the world is what we make it."

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Office 12 has equal issues
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 10:04 AM EST

Changing to Office 12 will have the exact same issues. It will be an equally disturbing change in format. Why is it that no one ever mentions this, especially the axe grinders.

One thing good about the changing picture on formats is that it takes time. During that time, spongy-brained commentators will expose themselves as worthless. One thing is sure, if I were selecting a consultant to help me make a system change I would steer clear of anyone packing so obvious a grinding wheel.

Paul Thomas

[ Reply to This | # ]

Also at eWeek
Authored by: Observer on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 10:05 AM EST
Just so you don't think that everyone at eWeek is a MS shill, there's another article by Steven Vaughan-Nichols which takes a very different slant on the issue. Steven has always been a great supporter of Open Source, and generally "gets it" when he talks about things like the GPL, and the difference between OOo and ODF. I always look at the last line in an article to tell where the author's mind is really at:
Good-bye, Mr. Quinn, thank you for trying to do the right thing. I wish there were more like you.

---
The Observer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 10:16 AM EST
Seems Coursey is investing in the John C. Dvorak approach to generate
readership. For years Dvorak has made a living putting little twists to
industry news and gaining mention. What the heck, its a living for a hack.

Cheers
Mark

[ Reply to This | # ]

Monopoly?
Authored by: twetmore on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 10:22 AM EST
Near the end of the article, PJ seems to be conflating Microsoft's status as a monopoly on PC-based operating systems with their dominance in office suite software.

So far as I remember, Microsoft's office software was never a part of their trial and conviction as an abusive monopoly, so that is somewhat irrelevant here. At the very least, I do not think you can logically argue "Microsoft has a monopoly on PC-based operating systems, therefore consumers have no choice in office suite software."

You can certainly buy a computer with Microsoft Office installed. Last time I bought a Windows-based laptop from Dell I did precisely that, since I use Open Office for my personal documents and school papers (exported to PDF for submission). When I got rid of that laptop and bought an Apple iBook, I do not think I even had a chance to bundle MS Office with it.

I think the "choice" of Microsoft Office by consumers has been based on interoperability with documents created at work. Indeed, that is why I used to use it. Now I just no longer edit work documents on my personal computers. Of course, businesses have largely chosen Microsoft office for years, for reasons that have never been shown to be illegal, unless I have missed something.

With that said, I think the rest of PJ's article is right on. This last point about their operating system monopoly just weakens the argument a bit, in my view.

When Coursey says, "Microsoft is here, and as the overwhelming choice of customers, it gets to make certain decisions, file formats being one of them," he's right. Well, sort of. Microsoft does have the right to define whatever file formats they like and impose those formats on their customers. However, the state of Massachusetts has the right to define the file format they wish to use, even if that requires becoming an ex-customer of Microsoft. That is the part he seems to be missing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Line Items..
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 10:37 AM EST
Firstly, while completely agreeing with phantom21, I'll now be so foolish as to rebut Mr. Courseys fantasies..

Why did the Massachusetts state CIO believe it was his job to tell the people of Massachusetts what file format they should use?
He IS the CIO, and that is HIS job.. What he is paid to do.

Why should the state select a format for storing state documents that is different from what a huge majority of its citizens are already using?
That one is simple.. What the "huge majority" is using is not capable of meeting the requirements of the government.

Put another way: Is it the responsibility of citizens to change what they're doing for the convenience of the government?
Question, Does Mr Coursey have a license to drive a car? Does he fill out paper work, in the form required, to title & register that car? Does he fill out paper work, in the form required, to pay his taxes??

Rather than adopt a single format for the distribution of documents,
They are using multiples.. 4 that I can think of off the top of my head..

Microsoft .. as the overwhelming choice of customers
Wrongo, It is not chosen, it is forced upon..

it gets to make certain decisions, file formats being one of them
No, the customer gets to specify what (s)he wants.. Imagine me going to buy a car & being told that the only car available for purchase by the public was a Yugo with an anemic 1.6 liter. Shades of what our media tells us the USSR was like.. Within the constraints of what is acceptable, the customer gets to choose. The customer wants ODF.. It gets ODF.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: GrueMaster on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 11:09 AM EST
Here is a brief history lesson.

Before there was the internet, BBS systems ruled the phone lines. Major ones
included AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, and others, along with a mirade of private
BBS systems. BBS's were either text based that would work with any system and
software, or they had a graphical front end, requiring a proprietary dialer
(AOL, Prodigy, Excalibur BBS, etc).

Along comes Mosaic and the HTML standard, and you now have the same graphical
capabilities across multiple platforms and OS's, accessability for blind
(through text readers), and a wide array of other capabilities. That is what a
standard can do.

Or go back further. Early computers were programmed in assembly language.
Thousands of hours went into developing in this language, only to have to be
redone if a system were upgraded or replaced. Along came the C programming
language (another standard), and now programs could become portable, usually
only needing minor tweeks and a rebuild.

Now, as to Microsoft vs ODF, if you think that 10 years from now you'll be able
to open an Office 12 document, good luck. Currently, the only software available
to read older Word documents (say, Word 6.0) is not available from Microsoft.

Having been a consultant in the legal field, I have had to sell document
conversion software specifically for this reason. The ONLY reason to not use ODF
that is a valid arguement is accessability for the blind. Fortunately, since the
ODF standard is widely available, software to cover that minority (which I might
add is currently the ONLY minority group not represented by ODF) is already in
development on multiple fronts. I'm sure that this group will be represented far
before Microsoft Office 12 hits the streets.

Which brings up another point. When MS Office 12 is released, will document
reading software for the blind be immediately available? How about those of us
that can't afford to purchase Office 12? Or those of us that can't afford a
faster system (although there is really no justifiable reason for an Office
suite to require a faster system - I can type just as fast on my old Atari 800
as I can on my P4 3Ghz).

By specifying ODF as an approved standard file format, they have created a need
for users to upgrade their software, but then wouldn't the same happen if
Massachusetts had decided to use Office 12's xml format? They have done only one
thing; they gave their voters a choice of software, instead of no choice.

---
You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: brc on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 11:20 AM EST

"Why should the state select a format for storing state documents that is different from what a huge majority of its citizens are already using? And which the state itself already uses? Of does that improve access to state information?"

The "huge majority" are not, in fact, using the MS "open" office XML format, since it's not out yet... At some point, users will have to upgrade - why not go to a format that, as part of a standard, will be supported somewhere by someone pretty much forever, vs "upgrading" to yet another proprietary format that will become obsolete the _next_ time the single vendor that owns it changes again.

"Put another way: Is it the responsibility of citizens to change what they're doing for the convenience of the government? Or should government seek to meet the needs of the largest number of its citizens?"

Even if this were true, MS already mandates "citizens" change what they are doing, by forcing upgrades to new software and new, incompatible formats every couple of years.

"Rather than adopt a single format for the distribution of documents, governments should support multiple formats or at least provide some means of converting from whatever format the state uses to whatever the citizen is using."

Maybe because anyone that has any experience in any technical arena would know how impractical and burdensome it is to support all the formats users might use, even if they limited this to only the formats MS has defined over time (and show me where even MS office current products support MS Word 1.0 files).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey - Even More
Authored by: Dijital on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 11:22 AM EST
From Coursey's Article:

"Why should the state select a format for storing state documents that is
different from what a huge majority of its citizens are already using?"

And we're absolutely sure that 100% of those citizens are using a legally
purchased copy of the MS Office suite software. Let's get real shall we? I
recently took a look at a new Dell system for my mother-in-law because she
seriously needs a new computer. Cost of Computer complete with a 17"
monitor: $400. Cost to add on Microsoft Office: $490. What kind of value is
there in increasing the price of a computer by 120 percent from an office
suite?

The "huge" majority are using it because they can get it pirated. I'd
certainly be willing to bet that if Microsoft could get away with the same
things as the RIAA by suing customers, those people would be jumping to another
office suite pretty quick. I've been using OpenOffice at home for a very long
time, and it's a fantastic product. I'm really looking forward to seeing
Evolution ported to Windows so I can use it on both my Linux and Windows
machines! Thunderbird is OK, but Evolution rules the roost I think!

---
- Armando -

"mv sco /dev/null"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 11:37 AM EST
Everyone should write a polite letter to the publishers of eWeek and point out
his non-stop errors, mistakes, intentional omission of correct facts, or
complete incompetancy. In the process, send links to the groklaw article.

If someone were so inclined, it would be interesting to take a list of his more
recent "opinion" pieces and create a side correcting the facts he uses
to base his opinions.

Remember, he writes 'opinion' pieces. The reason why the publishers don't worry
about what he writes is because they are simply his opinions, "not
necessarily that of" the publisher. But -- if he mentions facts in his
articles that are wrong -- well, either he doesn't know how to do his own
research, or he is intentionally ignoring the truth about what he is writing.
Bringing that to the attention of the publisher is better than complaining about
a difference of opinion.

The best way to combat this is what PJ has been doing all along - making sure
there is a bright light on the truth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: wap3 on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 12:35 PM EST
Ok, I lifted this, for my Notable Sayings file, from a reply on SlashDot but it
fits perfectly.

When I heard that Microsoft was releasing an "open standards" document
format, I was so excited that I went to the Microsoft Windows website, and was
amazed seeing such titles as "Transforming Word Documents into the XSL-FO
Format" and such.

Now all I need to do is maybe go download the .exe to start translating on my
linux system.
Oh wait, that would be for Microsoft Windows only.

Well maybe I should just go take a look at "Word 2003: XML Software
Development Kit (SDK)".
Now all I need to do is download the wdxmlsdk.msi file and run that.
Oh wait, screwed again.

Imagine that, I looked through the entire site and can't find a single
executable or document format that doesn't require me to buy a Microsoft Windows
OS and Office Suite.

Lets all give Microsoft a big round of applause for their *open* XML format!

--WAP3
Registered Linus User: 404804
Registered Linux Box: 309229

Give me the knowledge to change the code I do not accept, the wisdom not to
accept the code I cannot change, and the freedom to choose my preference.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sovereignty
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 12:54 PM EST

extraordinary that anyone would suggest that one of the perks of being a monopolist is that you get to tell governments what to do and what file formats to use

Unfortunately, this is more common than you might think. A major focus within the U.S. Federal Government (and D.O.D in particular) is COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf).

While it sounds good that the Government should look to procure developed products off-the-shelf rather than develop customized products, the reality is that the Federal Government has lost a significant amount of control as to specifications. This leads to situations such as ones I've heard where statements to prospective suppliers such as "I've got $1.5 million to spend, tell me what I need to buy" are not considered unusual or improper, and are actually encouraged.

I suppose what I'm really trying to say is that I believe it has led to the current mindset where a majority of Federal employees I know with acquisition authority would consider it not only acceptable, but expected, that Microsoft (or any other supplier) would tell the Government what to use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Sovereignty - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 01:28 PM EST
Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Carla Schroder on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 12:56 PM EST
No, Mr. Coursey is not educable. Given the huge abundance
of factual information available, including articles by
his fellow eWeek columnist Steven J. Vaughn, I see only
two possible explanations for his persistent inability to
base his opinions on facts:

1. He just plain doesn't want to. Why do something that
involves effort?

2. He is either a Microsoft True Believer, and therefore
impervious to facts, or worse, on their payroll.

Anyone who has followed his writing career knows that this
sort of junk is standard for Mr. Coursey. It's really too
bad, when those same column inches could be employed in a
useful manner, instead of for half-baked propaganda.

[ Reply to This | # ]

David Coursey's New Business Model
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 01:19 PM EST
Coursey seems to have found a new publishing business model, The Slashdot Effect
Target (may also be styled the Cross-site Troll Posting):

1. Find a popular site that espouses some position or cause
2. Attract the attention of site contributors or moderators
3. Publish some anti-cause drivel that might convince the inattentive or
uninformed
- 3A. Make sure that said drivel is dangerous enough to require countering
- 3B. Make sure that some of the drivel invites obvious correction
4. Sit back and enjoy the clicks, as contributors to the popular site must read
your tripe in order to refute it.
5...
6. Profit!

Look at Coursey's article again. He's not really trying to convince anybody of
anything -- he's just trying to start a noisy controversy with PJ and the
Groklovians. All of his points are either rebuttals to points raised on
Groklaw, or stabs at Groklovian hot buttons.

If it were not for Groklaw, Dave Coursey couldn't get published in the New
Rodale Shelter, let alone eWeek.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 01:33 PM EST
Evidently Mr. Coursey must be new to the whole IT thing. Apparently he has never had to help clients to convert/read documents which were written using Lotus Ami Pro, Multimate or Wordstar 3. The assumption that we will be able to read MS Word documents in fifty years is just assinine.

Coursey proved time and time again during his trainwreck tenure at Anchordesk that he is clueless to anything that is not Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Removing my name from Ziff Davis List
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 02:25 PM EST
This is my response to Ziff Davis. Other thoughtful people may feel likewise.



To: david_morgenstern@ziffdavis.com
Dear Sir:

I have removed my name from your newsletter list. No point in contiuing when
David Coursey continues to waste your space and my time. I expect there may be
others like myself, but who knows. Perhaps your readership enjoys the rags you
see in supermarkets and finds his nonsense entertaining. You know the ones,
where the headlines trumpet "Jon Benet's blood was drained by aliens"
for example.

Cousey writes unconnected drivel. Read one article after another and see how
his rabid opinions contradict from hour to hour. I would have thought that, as
executive editor, you are capable of noticing that and perhaps thinking that it
deters from goals of good journalism. Well we readers do notice. Look at
Groklaw and see that some intelligent sounding observers are well within my
camp.

It has nothing to do with Windows vs everyone else; nothing to do with an
unprovoked display of hatred for a man Coursey probably never met. It is all to
do with my desire to read thoughtful, contributory comment. One thing I think
we all know, it is vastly easier to destroy something than it ever is to build
it. Courseys material is the work of a vandal.

Regards
Paul Thomas

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 03:38 PM EST
http://news.com.com/Gates+taking+a+seat+in+your+den/2008-1041_3-5514121-2.html?t
ag=st.num

4th page of article

[ Reply to This | # ]

The straight answer
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 03:44 PM EST
Why did the Massachusetts state CIO believe it was his job to tell the people of Massachusetts what file format they should use?

From the Massachusetts web site:

The ITD Director & Chief Information Officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, has the responsibility to set information technology standards [...]
So the answer is that he believed it was his job because it was in his job description. The fact that he didn't actually tell the people of Massachusetts to use ODF is worth mentioning, but that still would have been within his jurisdiction if he'd wanted to. The decision to provide and accept other formats was because that is presently a better idea, not because it would be outside of the scope of his department.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please indulge me this bit of humour
Authored by: dmarker on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 06:12 PM EST

If Groklaw keeps exposing 'backsides' (replace this word with a more famous and
widely used word that begins with the letter A), then Groklaw may end up getting
shut down by the League of Decency as place of repetitive and obscene exposures
:)

Go PJ Go !

Cheers

DSM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Chipper on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 08:29 PM EST
This is one of the reasons I don't like reading anything from Coursey. He
doesn't understand anything unless it comes from Microsoft. When he was with
ZDNet he always seemed to make Bill Gates a god type. He only knows MS and
nothing else. He claims that he use to be a Mac guy but sometimes I wonder. Like
I said if it isn't MS he is clueless.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey: Its all about document archiving!
Authored by: Woelfchen on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 08:42 PM EST
What David Coursey does not get, is the benefit created by an XML format (that does not contain binary content of course):
  1. It is possible to store these documents in a revision/version control system and create a comprehensive change report. While most of the version control systems allow storing binary contents, only a few (afik subversion does) allow the creating of delta information on binary data. All the others just zip the file and store the zip image in their repository. But imagine trying to figure out when reading a delta report on the binary data what was happening to the document underneath. In contrast to that from a true XML file I can create a delta report and make sense of what I read. Although dealing with all the namespaces and tags may take some time it is a possible task.
  2. Binary data are most definitely platform specific. Especially numerical data of multi-byte sizes tend to be dependent on the natural way the processing CPU orders the individual bytes in its RAM. This is also known as endianess. While an ASCII or even a Unicode file can be read the same way on every computer platform now and for quite some future, you cannot determine the endianess of your binary data from the data itself and this is the biggest obstacle in your way to use whatever hardware is en vogue when you are trying to retrieve the document in some distant future.
  3. Anybody who still is in posession of some old MS Word documents from the early 1990s knows for sure that all these documents are lost now. So why is this foe trying to tell the people to make darkness the industry-standard, when there can be light?

Praise all those that have nothing to say and that - under no circumstances - are willing to break their silence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 06 2006 @ 11:00 PM EST
Look, Coursey and many other eWeek writers are stuck in the 20th century.

I used to receive this pub for years until the web came along in the 90's. I saw the light, Slackware, and the fall of client/server computing. We need to realize that this is the death throws of a desperate lost industry which cannot "win" in an open world. Extortion and strong arming of customers and vendors is not possible in the 21st century. This is the beginning of the "open" times. We have alternatives and will choose them because we know there are no hidden gotchas. I am pretty sure Coursey did not read the Massachusetts documents, listen to any of the discussion mp3s, etc.. Someone from Microsoft fed him the information directly or through someone else. Like a minion, he regurgitated it in eWeek.

Be compassionate with these lost souls and maybe they will evolve. Others have seen the light, maybe Coursey can too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 07 2006 @ 01:07 AM EST
"Has Microsoft forgotten who works for whom?"
Surely in a capitalist system, where 96% of the money is controlled by 4% of the
population, Government is a sop to the masses to kid them that they and their
elected Government officials are in control.

Microsoft's major share holders know the truth. They control most of the money,
so they control most of the people, and can and do give handouts to any person
they need to promote and vote for their own researched and funded legislation or
ideas.

Bill Gates is the real president of the USA by right of being the richest man in
the country. Bush is just one of his puppets and obviously keeps his position by
leaving the domestic economy decisions to those who have the monetary power,
concentrating instead on foreign issues, especially where it can get more
resources for Gates mates to consume.

Of course the people do have the power of boycott, which they did with the old
IBM when it got too powerful and tried to dictate what we wanted, and I imagine
(hopefully) the same thing will happen to MS as it tries to (in Gate's words)
"control the home entertainment industry".

The old IBM was a lot cleverer than their protege MS, as they has their own
extended version of SGML in place before people tried to standardise for
document exchange and storage. If MS had been that clever, this current round of
standards wars would have fizzled before it got off the ground, but one can
imagine that they forgot to look at their IBM marketing strategy bible when
OASIS got off the ground, and were forced to implement the conquering strategy
too late.

Now we have people like David Coursey trying to win the hearts and minds of the
ordinary people with a few well chosen misconceptions after the horse has
bolted.

Americans should realise MS and other monopolistic businesses fund hundreds of
spin doctors as well as legislators to grow their consumer base.
That is the way things work in a Capitalist economy. In the far East, it's
openly called bribery, but the so called sophisticated West calls it political
and artistic donations.

Get real America and fight one monopoly with another. Send all your spare cash
to the PJ foundation and set her up as the president of the richest organization
in the USA. She can fund the spin doctors and legislators. With her attitude we
will see MS and all the other consumer monopolies tremble in their CD drives.

Stomfi
Australia

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ask Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 07 2006 @ 03:03 AM EST
What is the use of an opinion, if it isn't based on facts?

It's priceless.

[ Reply to This | # ]

eWeek lets Coursey twist in the wind
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 07 2006 @ 05:25 AM EST
Given that Quinn, et al, produced one of the most well reasoned and documented
decisions _ever_ produced by a public body, I couldn't figure out why eWeek
would allow publication of such a clueless article.

Doesn't eWeek have any editors worth a damn?

Then it occured to me...

Yes, we all know that there are many M$ shills in the computer publication
world, and that a HUGE percentage of all advertising dollars for such
publications comes from M$ related advertisers, raising the question...

How does such a computer publication, beholden to M$, if not
directly, support an anti_M$ position without incurring its wrath?

by publishing obviously clueless articles.

eWeek gets to say to M$ that it let one of its regular authors write a piece
supporting M$'s postion, and that it's not eWeek's fault that the facts don't
support M$.

Thus, Coursey is allowed to hang himself, and twist slowly in the wind.

Then again, maybe I'm giving eWeek too much credit.
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 07 2006 @ 12:45 PM EST
Way to go, Pam!

Hard work and research pays off.

Milt Walker
Houston Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 07 2006 @ 04:08 PM EST
I have great admiration for Groklaw/Pamela Jones and all the other
individuals/organizations that attempt to correct the false and utterly
misleading (sometimes stupendously stupid) statements made regularly by those -
mostly shills of some protective/monopolist interest.

Personally I would not, and do not have the patience for such defensive measures
- even though quite needed, simply because I view the ramblings of these shills,
expecially people like David Coursey as an attempt to make us waste inordinate
amounts of time and precious energy on these "educational" and
"corrective" processes.

I am convinced that Mr. Coursey either understands clearly the ridiculousless of
his gibberish statements, or he is totally ignorant - meaning having complete
lack of knowledge and/or truthfulness - about the subject, thereby putting the
community always on the defensive.

The truly sad fact about this exercise is that the USA technology Media continue
to hire and promote people like David Coursey - the controversial publishings of
whom I have been made (painfully) aware, and noted for many years - simply to
raise readership/reader responses and thereby profit under any circumstances,
and appear to have no real desire for producing quality or genuinely informative
(and fairly accurate, far seeking) documentary on technology.

Now I know why - from Charlie Rose show on PBS - Jan/6/2005 - guests from
Stanford University President, John Chambers of Cisco and others say that Aisia,
Europe and South America are leaping ahead of USA in many areas of technology.
We'e stuck responding to the inaptitude of people like David Coursey.

W. Anderson
wanderson@nac.net

[ Reply to This | # ]

Black Ops
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 07 2006 @ 04:53 PM EST
Flood public media with disinformation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educating David Coursey ...
Authored by: tanstaafl on Monday, January 09 2006 @ 05:38 PM EST
... appears to be a lost cause. The man ignored the FAQ, assumes that a private
corporation can dictate to the State, does not appear to realize that using
Microsoft file formats _limits_ competition because Microsoft is under no
oblication to describe the formats to non-Microsoft vendors (_OR_ its customers)
...

Mr. Coursey apparently feels challenged by the possibility that he may have to
learn new software - no, wait, that _Microsoft_ that changes everything every 18
months ... What we have here is pretty much the same situation as Forbes
Magazine, in which an opinionated writer tries to pass off his opinions as
immutable fact. There's nothing wrong with being opiniated (U'll not find too
many folks more opiniated than I am!), and it's good that a publisher gives his
opinion writers freedom to err, but they ought to draw the line at distributing
out-and-out mis-information. In my book, the Boston Globe, like Forbes, has
descended to the level of a daily rag - and one that's not worth spending money
to read (advertisers, take note!).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Editable IS the point, or should be.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 14 2006 @ 04:42 AM EST
> ODF is an archiving format. It's for internal use. The FAQ > is clear
that no citizen is to be burdened with any
> interoperability issues, and so it seems likely that if a > citizen
needs a document, it will be provided as PDF. It
> seems logical to me that when citizens are provided
> documents, they will be in PDF format precisely because no > government
is going to provide official documents in a
> format that can be edited. Is this hard to grasp?

But this is an ESSENTIAL part of any open format. PDF does not secure content,
the only way to do that is by cryptographic signing. So the `security' argument
is bogus and used to divert attention from the real issue.

And that issue is that we want to quote and combine documents to create new
ones. And we want to be able to do this easily and acuratly with out having to
jump through pointless hoops. Using PDF is a step back to pictographic cave
wall painting. All you can do is look at it, in poor conditions. It is not even
as good as paper for crying out loud.

A format like PDF is only good for spectators, passive readers who take no part
in the process and discussion. To be a participant, then all involved have to be
able to speak, echo and be heard. Open editable formats make this possible, and
should be used to make it easier, not to shut down and stop two way exchanges.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )