|
EU Commission Investigating Microsoft's MSOOXML Push |
|
Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:32 PM EST
|
Now that it's making headlines in the mainstream press that the EU Commission is investigating Microsoft's behavior in trying to get MSOOXML accepted as an ISO "standard", I want to simply remind the world that Groklaw has a permanent ODF/MSOOXML page, including a chronology, where all the events can be tracked, month by month, since the Massachusetts events began in January of 2005.
Other primary resources you can find on the ODF/MSOOXML page are links to significant blogs that focus on this issue and a Miscellaneous section, where you will find the information surrounding the Massachusetts saga, technical white papers, and transcripts of public meetings. I hope it's all helpful. I always believed this was at least a possibility that someday someone would look into the behavior we were seeing, and that was one additional reason why we decided to create a permanent resource. I want to thank all the Groklaw volunteers who helped with this page over the years, particularly grouch for helping me by maintaining the page, and Scott Lazar, mojotoad, Chris Knadle, Adrian, Mecha, and Ed_L for helping getting it set up in the beginning. The Internet being what it is, if you notice any older links that no longer resolve, please send me that information, so we can tweak. If you recall, the EU Commission earlier mentioned two antitrust investigations, with the MSOOXML being a part of the one on interoperability. I gather from the linked Wall St. Journal article and Andy Updegrove's analysis that it is now a third, separate investigation on its own. Take a look at the chronology, read the articles linked to, and I think you'll understand why the Commission has apparently agreed to at least investigate. I hope they think to investigate the smear campaigns that seem to always happen to anyone on the other side from Microsoft. What happened to Peter Quinn was by no means unique.
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:34 PM EST |
Please make links clickable!
(If you don't know how, post anyway and someone else will happily make a
clickable link for you)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Qualcomm loses ability to enforce patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 05:39 PM EST
- All men are equal in the eyes of the Law - except Linux users - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 05:56 PM EST
- Yahoo not jumping on Microsoft bid? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 07:16 PM EST
- Intel steals a non-profit's patent (it is alleged) - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 07:27 PM EST
- "State of Open Source Message: A New Decade For Open Source" - Authored by: warner on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 10:33 PM EST
- From the Lifestyles section of The Daily Star, Oneonta, NY, USA - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 06:35 AM EST
- Nifong Bankruptcy - Authored by: joef on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 10:09 AM EST
- From OLPC Live CD - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 10:15 AM EST
- PubMed & Creative Commons - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 10:25 AM EST
- MS "tie-in" between Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 12:04 PM EST
- ..off Shore Topic here ;o) - Authored by: arnt on Sunday, February 10 2008 @ 11:09 AM EST
|
Authored by: MathFox on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:35 PM EST |
We have one on each story
---
If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within
itself, then it is inconsistent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:38 PM EST |
As always about links, post away, making links clickable if you can - if you
don't know how to make a link clickable, someone will be glad to give you a
hand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bigbert on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:38 PM EST |
Let the light of truth shine on these activities, and let's see.......
---
--------------------------
Surfo, ergo sum.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:41 PM EST |
I wish the US Doj. had half the integrity of the EU.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:48 PM EST |
All the fines in the world will not stop MS! Only solution = split MS up into 5
parts!
It is like an octopus now. You cut off one arm it grows another. It is huge,
and out of control. It uses the courts to delay, and make billions! The court
costs AND small fines, afterall, what is a billion dollars to Microsoft..., all
these expenses... are just marked down as a cost of doing business! A normal
day for Microsoft that only Microsoft can do!
Hmmm, I wonder if they get a tax deduction for all this legal cost and fines?
It is time to split up the company into 5 independent parts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- All the fines in the world will not stop MS! Only solution = split MS up into 5 parts! - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:56 PM EST
- Way back when... - Authored by: mexaly on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 04:27 PM EST
- All the fines in the world will not stop MS! Only solution = split MS up into 5 parts! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 04:31 PM EST
- nuke it from orbit (n/t) - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 07:42 PM EST
- Leave Microsoft in the dark - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 09:40 PM EST
- All the fines in the world will not stop MS! Only solution = split MS up into 5 parts! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 10:11 PM EST
- Clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 10:15 PM EST
- Two parts would do - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 07:33 AM EST
- All the fines in the world will not stop MS! Only solution = split MS up into 5 parts! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 07:40 AM EST
- All the fines in the world will not stop MS! Only solution = split MS up into 5 parts! - Authored by: Rob M on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 11:25 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 03:49 PM EST |
Microsoft's contributions to European political campaigns is apparently
insufficient.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 04:53 PM EST |
I wrote to my country's EU commissioner about the MS OOXML ISO issue a while
ago. Guess it payed off.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ditto - Authored by: Peter Baker on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:28 AM EST
- Ditto - Authored by: bberrign on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 03:12 AM EST
- Ditto - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 09:39 AM EST
|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 05:37 PM EST |
Imagine you are a delegate at the BRM. The EC hasn't published the outcome of
its inquiry, so you can't take it into account as long as there is a possibility
they find every thing kosher. (ha! ha!)
But this inquiry casts a shadow in the room. What if OOXML is adopted and the EC
decide this is because of improper influence? What if they say OOXML would never
have been adopted without anti-trust violations? You may have to answer on your
role in the adoption. Depending on which side you voted, you are either and
accomplice or a hero that tried to resist the tide. Or you may pretend to be a
fool that didn't understand a thing and voted for OOXML in good faith. this is
hard to believe when this debate makes the headlines all over the place and some
other delegate raise the point during the meeting.
If you are an ISO official, you have to worry about explaining your role in the
process. You need to prepare to answer tough questions. What are the safeguards
there are in ISO against such interference? How did you implement them? Should
the ISO standardization of OOXML be revoked if it is adopted in improper
circumstances?
There is a question that could be raised right now. When there is an anti-trust
inquiry on the process, can you adopt the standard when things are less than
squeaky clean?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AndyC on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 06:22 PM EST |
Yahoo news item on the
8-K.
Andy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 06:26 PM EST |
I expect to start seeing more and more blogs similar to groklaw soon now, as
people start to realise the power of grouped and shared knowledge, coupled with
a pasionate interest in whatever subject.
Truly nothing can be hidden any more.
10 years ago no one would have blinked, let alone heard anything of any of this
unless you were in the right circles.
I dont have much to contribute to this particular project, but i remain
interested as i have from the start, of the sco suits, as im sure many other
people do.
Big companies really can no longer hide from anyone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2008 @ 09:44 PM EST |
This is great. The EU likely won't be able to act in time to stop OOXML from
being approved by the ISO. However, the number one reason Microsoft wants
approval is that governments around the world, in part as a consequence of ODF
and all the publicity around it, are demanding document interoperability.
If the EU rules a year or two from now that Microsoft cheated in wining ISO
approval and isn't entitled to be considered a true open standard, then the
various EU national governments of the EU are going to reject it for ODF, and
likely many other governments will too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BassSinger on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 03:02 AM EST |
An interesting thread came across Linux-Users list this last week under the
heading "Memory Tweak":
*******************
>> The big news of M$'s buyout of Yahoo is getting a lot of attention in
>> the media, but nobody has mentioned the ads M$ ran on TV 1-2 years ago
>> proclaiming its development of a search engine technology that would
>> leave everything else in its dust.
>>
>> Does the Yahoo buyout effort signify a major expensive failure which
M$
>> may be trying to cover up?
>
> Well something IS going on for sure... MSFT offered $44.6 billion for Yahoo
while microsofts cash reserve is "only" $17 billion. MSFT stated that
they would have to take a loan to fully implement the buyout. Where did the
money go? Last I heard, back in the good old days, they had like a $60 billion
cash reserve...
> How do you burn through so much capital without investors screaming bloody
hell? Amazing how times have changed for one of the most unfriendly of
businesses.
>
> And worse yet, how do you make an offer like they have for Yahoo and not
have the cash onhand to do the deal? And buying another failing tech company, in
this economic climate is... crazy.
MS has been burning thru something like 20B per year the last few years, mostly
in acquisitions.
************
Just thought you all might enjoy this angle on the buyout. Can anyone confirm
the numbers on M$'s cash reserves?
Tom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 04:28 AM EST |
This should be an interesting discussion in MS strategic meetings.
-
The abnormal size of the specification is well documented.
- The stacking of
committees is also well documented.
- The fact the fast track is unsuitable
for a standard in this state of readiness is easy to establish.
- The quality
of the specification is easy to prove, with specific examples of nonsense like
non compliance with the Gregorian calendar.
- The reliance on Microsoft
specific technologies when already approved standards exists is well
proven.
This is a few issues I can list from the top of my head without
thinking too hard. A review of Rob Weir's blog will bring much more of the same
ilk.
So you are headed toward a BRM where a committee of 120 or so persons
must review comments at a rate of 2 or 3 minutes per comment. Then You will push
all the national bodies to approve the text. What is your strategy to handle the
EC? Are you going to claim there is no harm? That there is nothing wrong with
this process? Is this the head in the sand strategy or what?
There is
already a precedent in the Court of First Instance set for Microsoft.
Interoperability was the issue. Poor documentation was the issue. Can't you see
a predictable outcome? There is no track on this railroad after February. This
is a case where you should hit the break pedal, not the gas pedal.
It is one
thing to sing a siren song to standard setting committees to get an approval. It
is quite another thing to sing the same song to anti-trust authorities on the
lookout to get your hide. Here either Microsoft must change their OOXML
strategy, or they must bet the EC sanctions can be written off as a cost of
doing business. Both Microsoft and the EC know this, but Microsoft has to play
their move before the EC makes its ruling. Whatever the choice is, the EC will
take note. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 10:33 AM EST |
Just look at how the MARKET looks at Gates over the last 10 years:LINKY
Must drive Gates nuts that
the MARKET disrespects him. After all he is so
"rich" and "powerful"; but can't
manipulate/control the MARKET.
Too bad FLOSS has missed the mark so
far; and has not produced a
compelling/engaging CORPORATE VIDEO to "sell" FLOSS
or to expose M$. If a
PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS, an engaging VIDEO
must be worth
ten of thousand of words!
Don't know what a CORPORATE
VIDEO is? It has "nothing" to do with
corporations. DEFINITION: Instead of
using advertising to sell a service,
product or an idea; a story is told by
using a short "compelling /engaging"
video. These CORPORATE VIDEOS have to be
creative, NOT DRY AS SAWDUST!
Here is a starter web page to begin
one's education about corporate
video production (picked at random) LINKY
FLOSS could
send someone to school (finally!!) to learn how to do it.
(FLOSS could hire a
champion corporate video producer)
LINKY
First "rule" that one learns at the above school:
50% of the entire time
writing, shooting, editing a corporate video isn't spent
on writing, shooting,
editing the video. 50% of all the time is spent on
conceiving/developing the
right story to tell!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2008 @ 06:00 AM EST |
If the EC investigation results in finding Microsoft
having violated European antitrust laws, makes that the
Microssoft bussines partners in Europe which have voted on
behalf of Microsoft also liable ? This because these
partners could have known that they where abusing the ISO
voting system on behalf of a monopoly.
The same holds for the heads of the local ISO people which
have cooperated by for example not having provided enough
room for all voting members.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 11 2008 @ 02:32 PM EST |
quoting a comment from updegrove's blog related post
http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080208082501776
a>
"...
may be [EU regulators] can ask some people at the ISO National
Bodies of Cyprus island, Jamaica island, Malta island, Cote d Ivoire and
Lebanon, what caused their "sudden" motivation to ask (and get) ISO JTC1
P-member status a few days previous to DIS 29500 september/2007 ballot
closing...
... just to vote unconditionally yes to +6000 pages of a notably
flawed specification ( which until now achieved an outstanding mark of +3000
observations and +2000 quick-fixes/deletions/deprecations with only a few months
of a rushed review and which final proposed text remains undefined ) generated
in less than 1 year in a closed, not traceable nor accountable process at an
ECMA Technical committee formed and lead by Microsoft.
I wonder how much
technical review meetings took place at this national bodies to review DIS 29500
( any minutes of this meetings? ) and what caused their unprecedented interest
in Document Description and Processing Languages standards related to structured
markup languages (specifically the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML)
and the Extensible Markup Language (XML)) in the areas of information
description, processing and association ( ISO JTC1 SC34 area of interest
).
I don't want to be disrespectful with this countries, but i don't
consider standards and standardizations as a "game to win" ( it seems that some
corporations have this point of view ).
I see here an amazing lack of
respect, because many responsible JTC1 P-members ( with background and expertise
in this field ) did a lot of *hard* work to review DIS 29500 to decide if it has
the technical merits to be an ISO fast-tracked standard ( i.e: UK BSI [1], USA
Incits/V1 [2], Japan, Canada [3], China, India, France [4], etc. ) and this
other national bodies just seems to be pawns in the game, leaving the technical
work aside.
Wake up ISO, wake up end users ! demand quality in
standardization ! Money shouldn't buy standards.
franco
merletti
"
Is someone from the countries mentioned there reading this? Can you
contact your local regulators ( if you have any ) and put a formal complaint at
ISO? or ask your NB for information about how this fast-track process/reviewing
was handled?
--orlando
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|