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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


To read comments to this article, go here
Real Time Report from Massachusetts ODF Meeting - Updated
Wednesday, December 14 2005 @ 10:58 AM EST

UPDATE: Here's the audio, thanks to Dan Bricklin, who has pictures of the participants, including a picture of Andy Updegrove doing his real time reporting. Dan tells me that you can find Microsoft's Alan Yates' statement at around 54:00, if you wish to hear him talk about how open their license is, "you won't ever be sued..." and then say "MS has never argued against the Open Document Format..." (they just want to be included, too). At 2:06:45 Andy Updegrove asks questions about the MS Q&A posted yesterday. If anyone could transcribe the Microsoft portions, that would be very helpful indeed. If you can, please email me. The whole audio is over 2 hours, so transcribing the entire thing isn't practical, but the Microsoft parts are doable. Dan also writes about his personal conversation with Yates afterward.

Andy Updegrove is providing real time reports from the Massachusetts hearing about ODF/MS XML on his blog. It will be available as audio later too, but some of you may not want to wait for that.

While you are at it, you'll find Steven Vaughan-Nichols' collection of reactions to Microsoft's covenant not to sue very interesting.

People are not as positive as you might have expected. The article is called, "Not All Welcome Open XML Standard" and here's a taste:

Gartner analysts Michael Silver and Rita Knox have more practical concerns. Even if the Office 12 standard is "open," they point out that the technology needed to make it useful isn't open. "While it will be possible for OpenOffice.org and others to more faithfully replicate Microsoft's file format in their applications, Microsoft's rendering engine will not be an open specification. Thus, users of third-party products won't likely be able to display Microsoft's files with 100 percent visual fidelity or to execute macros (which will be saved in a different format) without problems," said the analysts.

There are also concerns expressed about Ecma, the standards body Microsoft chose to submit its schema to and then other express some doubts about Microsoft's true motive:

So if open standards and interoperability are red herrings, what is Microsoft's real goal?

According to Gartner analysts, it seems to be to combat the growing acceptance of the ODF (OpenDocument Format), which has been approved by OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), and companies and governments, like the Massachusetts state government, which are supporting open-standards.

But that would be anticompetitive, no? Can monopolies do that? Just asking.


  View Printable Version


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 )