EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

07.30.07

OOXML ‘Extension’ Tricks Have Roots in the Past

Posted in Antitrust, ECMA, IBM, ISO, Microsoft, Open XML at 2:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

After about a week of silence, Rob Weir is back and he’s already swinging. You’ll find Rob’s letter with OOXML objection arguments and you’ll also find this elaborate view on properietary ‘extensions’ in OOXML. This isn’t exactly new information, but it’s worth discussing further.

In previous posts I have pointed out numerous “features” in OOXML which cannot be implemented by anyone else but Microsoft. These stem from a variety of causes, including elements lacking definition (“lineWrapLikeWord6″) to features that are tied to Windows or Office (e.g., Windows Metafiles) to items that are “merely referenced (OLE, digital ink) to items that although featured prominently in Office marketing materials, are curiously not mentioned at all in the OOXML text (scripts, macros, DRM, SharePoint, etc.). When these issues are raised, the typical response from Microsoft has been along the lines of, “Don’t worry, these features are optional. You don’t need to implement them. They are there for implementations that know what they mean. If you don’t understand them, you can ignore them.”

Something in this strategy rang a bell, so dumpster-diving for some antitrust exhibits seemed like a fun idea.

Evidence that this is a recurring strategy is presented below. Highlighted using bold face are bits of particular interest.

Watch how Microsoft used OLE in the past.

Exhibit #1 [PDF]:

From: Bill Gates
Sent Sunday, October 06, 1996 11:54 AM
To: Bob Muglia
Cc: Aaron Contorer; Richard Fade; Steven Sinofsky; Paul Maritz; Nathan
Myhrvold; Brad Silverberg; Adam Bosworth
Subject: Access, Internet studio, VB and other overlapping products

..

Why is the difference between Internet studio and Access? I can’t detect any reasonable difference. Internet studio has taken an approach of putting onto HTML pages the most ugly Microsoft garbage ever seen since COM/OLE programming in C++ was declared a success in order to block language invocation. i am still blown away by seeing all those ugly PARAM statements in the HTML totally confusing anyone who tries to do anything. If something isn’t part of the WYSIWYG output then it should be succinct and understandable. This was the opposite of that.

Behold the “black project”.

Exhibit #2 [PDF]:

From: John Shewchuk
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 1995 2:46 PM
To: bens; bradsi; chrisjo; craigm; donbrad; jallard; jimall; johnlu;
mikecon; paulma; rict; thomasre
To: thomasre
Cc: patler
Subject: RE: Webmaster/Server ISV event – day one

When I got Gosling and Naughton started on the Java OLE control for Blackbird, it was a sensitive issue at Sun – Gosling was getting it done as a “black project”. So please don’t raisepublic awareness of the project without checking with Naughtion.

Regarding Java vs OLE controls

Both Gosling and Naughton will admit that java is a programming language and that without APIs to call, Java is kind of stupid. There is a growing consensus among developers that tried HotJava that it has major limitations.

The lack of APIs is the reason StarWave is doing the Java OLE control – so they can get access to OLE automation especially automation of Blackbird objects. Gosling admits that once someone does this it is no longer cross platform and it is hard to be safe.

Finally: OLE and Java go together nicely. You don’t need to position them as competitive. Java goes up against VB. We need to get the VB team to respond to Java. Maybe VB should be cross-platform and safe. See the Blackbird rude Q&A.

Regarding overall messages

I think the whole cross-platform issue is going to die down once we start getting cool OLE controls (or Netscape add-ons) that take advantage of DirectX and other Windows 95 APIs. Cross platform is an important customer message but in the long run it a bad technical goal because it means lowest common denominator. So talk the talk, but show customers and publishers what they are missing. Leverage our strength in great Windows 95 capabilities.

Netscape add-ins ONLY RUN IN A NETSCAPE BROWSER. You can’t use them in IE, Word, PowerPoint, VB, Delphi, VC++, Blackbird or anything else. You can’t even use them inside each other. OLE is OPEN, Netscape add-ins lock you into a Netscape only strategy. This is lame. Java is probably not much better.

Finally, both Java and Netscape add-ins fail to address design-time operation. This is a huge leverage point for Microsoft. Senior people that are fillly in the Netscape camp think twice when they see the Macromedia Director editor come up inside the Blackbird design environment. They think about what it will take to get this done in Netscape and it is a pain.

Why does this matter? Because it represents a radically different model of content creation than Java or Netscape add-ins suggest. CPs don’t want to write code!!! They want to focus on creating cool content. They
want simple, simple, simple. Programming is hard. OLE controls are PACKAGED bundles of capability. OLE makes it easy for hot software developers to package up a lot of code that the creatives can use. LibD from CRG can attest to the fact that Bud and they could provide their cool runtime to lots of non-programmers. (it turns out that many Macromedia users hate the fact that they have to learn Lingo to do anything cool.)

So let’s make sure we explain that OLE controls are more than JUST an add-in strategy. OLE Controls are the start of a COMPLETE strategy. Add an open message, VB Blackbird, IE with OLE control support, open
scripting, and so on, and then you have your story. Lets fight on our own turf – in other words, focus on content providers and ISVs (they are the enablers for the content providers) and give them what they want. And let the great applications win over the viewers.

FROM: Brad Silverberg

Infamous Microsoft documentation (if any is made available at all).

Exhibit #3 [PDF]:

To: Douglas Wilson @ Lotus, Scott Kliger @ Lotus, Phil Stanhope @ Lotus,
Alex Morrow @ Lotus, Joe Gulhridge @ Lotus, Jack Ozzie @ IRIS, Barry
Brfggs @ Lotus, Aswan Dev, Ailen Olsen @ Lotus, Aswan Clients, Jeffrey R
Beir @ Lotus, Michael Welles @ Lotus, Steve Manousos @ Lotus, Mike
Vassilopoulos @ Lotus

cc: John Landrt @ Lotus, Ilene Lang @ Lotus
From: Noah Mendelsohn
Date: 02/03/95 03:54:31 PM

Subject: Meeting with Sara Williams Regarding OCX Status and Support

Sara Williams, an OLE/OCX/Cairo evangelist in Microsoft DRG visited with a group of Lotus developers at Rogers Steel on Tuesday afternoon, January 31. Here are minutes of our meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to review Lotus’ concerns regarding Microsoft’s fairness in supporting OCX development, and to answer other questions regarding OCX and OLE.

Unless otherwise indicated, all questions are from Lotus personnel and all answers are from Sara. Sara has promised to respond by email on all the unresolved points listed below. I’ve rearranged the order of discussion to put the most useful new information near the top.

Lotus Attendees: Noah Mendebohn, Scott Kliger, Phil Stanhope, Edward Ogu~ofor, Jeff Buxton

Primary topic:

Lack of appropriate support and documentation for OCX. Microsoft applications and tools seem to have an unfair advantage using OCX-how did Microsoft release container apps when nobody is supposed to have sample code yet?

The most important issue we discussed, and the one we spent the most time on, is Lotus’ concern that OCX support for ISV’s is inadequate, that sample code for containers is not available, that the only server samples are part of MFC and carry restrictive licenses, and that Microsoft has somehow managed to ship products using OCX in spite of these limitations. Speaking only for herself, Sara indicated that she shares many of these concerns. She also said that Microsoft as a whole does recognize that there is a problem regarding support for ISV’s using OCX.

We emphasized the degree to which we view this as a serious threat to our ability to compete. While there were also problems when OLE 2.0 itself was released, the OCX situation is far worse. For OLE 2.0, Microsoft provided comprehensive published documentation, an extensive support infrastructure, and sample implementations which were of moderately good quality and no more restrictively licensed than the Windows operating system itself.

The current situation with OCX is inappropriate. Sara reiterated that she understood our concerns, but said she had not realized the seriousness with which we viewed these problem. She asked what could be cone to resolve the problems. Among the possibilities that we suggested were:

(1) provide freely licensed production quality sample implementations of container and server immediately … if other samples cannot be provided, remove the licensing restrictions on the relevant parts of the MFC controls implementation and the CDK.

(2) publicly acknowledge that OCX is an operating system API, to be supported with at least the same degree of open process as is applied to the windows API and OLE 2.0.

(3) Provide open support and immediately redress any advantages which may currently be given to Microsoft applications or tools products in using OCX

(4) Lotus believes that support could be improved and integration with OLE technology streamlined if Microsoft were to transfer OCX development responsibility to their systems organization, but that is ultimately an internal concern of Microsoft.

Sara acknowledged that the problems we highlighted are real, and that many of them do trace to the fact that OCX development is done in the tools group. She promised to promptly review our concerns with Doug Heinrich and other senior managers at Microsoft.

OTHER

Q. What OCX containers are available tor testing. For which ones is source available?

A. CPatron (source available, but not a production quality sample), Access (no source), VB.4.0 (Beta-no source), Visual FoxPro (no source). Doesn’t know whether Eforms has OCX container. Cairo shell will.

Q. What about Mike Blaszczack’s sample container?

A. Right, that’s coming when the MSJ article is published, but it’s based on MFC OLE support, so you probably have licensing problems with it. Also Kraig Brockschmidt is writing some new white papers on creating
an OLE controls container.

Q. We’ve heard that Microsoft is contemplating support for 32 bit VBX’s after all.

A. I’ve heard nothing about it and I can’t imagine why we would do that.

Lotus: Because VBX vendors are telling you that OCXs are too hard to build and that they have too much overhead.

A. I haven’t heard that and I think I would know about any change in strategy. It’s still: VBX is 16 bit only, OCX is preferred, and on 32 bit, it’s the only option.

Q. Is OCX on the Mac? Will it be? What about other Wise platforms?

A. Don’t know…will check. At best, Wise platforms would lag significantly.

Q. Will the OLE documents extensions previewed last week apply to OLE
Controls.

A. I would think so. (BTW, I’m not sure she’s right about that. Some of the OLE documents extensions are implemented in the OLE default handler, which is not normally used by OLE controls.)

Q. Tell us about OCX futures.

A. There is an improved CDK in the new Visual C-+, just out. Beyond that, can’t say much. A strange situation has arisen within Microsoft according to Sara. Although the Developer Relations Group (DRG) of which she is a part is organizationally affiliated with the Tools Group (i.e. languages, data bases, etc.), DRG actually has a much closer working relationship with the sysems organization See discussion above.

Q. Can we get the VB 4.0 beta? It’s the only useful example of a production quality OCX container wilh scripling.

A. Will check.

The lack of clear OCX documentation is aggravating a problem we’ve had with OLE 2.0 since the beginning: everybody’s doing it differently.

A. Microsoft is working on a validation suite for OLE 2.0 to test interoperability. First wave may see this in the next couple of months. Not clear whether this applies to OCX – I suspect not (NRM).

Lotus: Great, something like this is needed, but please make sure that ISV’s get to comment before the validation suite is frozen. Compatibility checking is important, but let’s make sure you’re not preventing our apps from doing what they need to do.

Q. Do you have more information on apartment model threading in OLE?

A. Apartment model threading will be supported in Win95 and NT 3.5.1. Should be in current win95 builds on ISDN. Fundamentally, each COM object does its work on a single thread. Sara is currently writing a white paper, with sample code. It will (probably) be available within the next 2 weeks or so on the ISDN server.

Q. When will a common .EXE be usable with the OLE .DLLs on NT and Win95

A. Don’t know. Will check.

What are the details of OLE support in the Chicago shell? Why was Lotus told that the shell would not be OLE enabled when In fact it is? Why was Lotus not given earlier warning if there was a change of plan? We’re still lacking useful documentation on OLE in the shell-is there any?

A. Sara didn’t seem to be familiar with the history of this problem, or with any of the details of OLE enabling in the shell.

Q. .DLLs have advantages over .EXE’s in terms of performance and flexibility, but doesn’t the OCX architecture take us back to where we were with Win16 in terms of programs (in this case components) impacting each others’ integrity? Also: isn’t this an incredibly powerful opportunity for those writing Trojan horses, viruses, etc?

All: This question generated quite a length discussion, but Sara didn’t seem to know whether anyone at Microsoft had given this serious consideration, whether there is an official corporate position on the problem, or whether there are any specific efforts planned to minimize the impact. The Lotus attendees expressed a strong concern that these were serious problems. It’s ironic that we’ve waited for robust, secure, 32 bit operating systems as the appropriate environment for OLE, and now we’re tooking at running multiple components within the same process space. (Noah’s observation, not expressed at the meeting: this is why the research community is looking at special purpose operating systems and special purpose hardware to support component based architectures, it’s difficult to get good pertormance with good isolation using convention processors and OS’s.) Noah

More information will be posted if any more is found.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 30, 2007 at 2:29 am

    Gravatar

    Watch how Microsoft ‘forgets’ (or neglects) to invite IBM to the preview of OLE. Just a few days ago, IBM got excluded in Portugal (and never forget Denmark). History repeats itself… in a sense.

    Exhibit #4 [PDF]:

    [...]

    Subject: Re: OLE DB Design Preview, June 7&8, 1995

    Thanks for the email followup. No .. I did not receive the fax. Do you know to which fax number you sent it? The updated fax number that I gave you a few weeks ago, 617-693-8676, is correct. I suspect that your distribution lists for design review announcements may have had an old number.

    We would like to have Lotus represent ion at the design review, but it will probably not be me this time, as I am off on paternity leave for awhile. If you wouldn’t mind faxing the materials to the number given above, I’ll try to circulate them and get a response ASAP. We’ll probably be picking it up Tues. or Wed, so a response by Wed. is a little tight. Would you please hold two slots for us in the meantime, and I’ll get back to you as quickly as possible? How tight is space this dine? Am I correct in assuming that this is the followup to the earlier Nile review, and that it’s for a somewhat broader audience? Thanks.

    Thanks also for your earlier note. Any news on VB 4.0 beta agreements? We have a similar interest in the VC++ 3.0beta, which we were also not invited to join. That too would be a good reference container, which I suspect that other container venders may be using as a point of comparison for their own work.

    As to why more container reference material is needed, I don’t doubt that some simple OCX containers can be built based on the reference materials available, particularly if you have access to VB 4.0 to use for comparison purposes and compatibility testing. On the other hand, there are numerous details that Kraig doesn’t even attempt to cover, for which the spec too is unclear.

    I doubt, for example, that the implementors of VB 4.0 or VC++ 3.0 could be implement their container support based only on cpatron and Appendix D or the CDK reference materials. So the issue is not that it’s
    impossible to write a container of any sort, but that it’s not possible to learn the details required to correctly build sophisticated containers that exploit the full range of features suggested in the OCX spot.

    Thanks as always for your help. Sorry I won’t be making it out there on this trip, but I look forward to attending future OLE related design reviews. Are any scheduled for the near future? Thanks.

    Noah

    [...]

    Greetings !

    By now, you should have received via fax an invitation to our upcoming OLE DB Design Preview. The Design Preview will be here at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington on June 7&8.

    If you have already RSvP’d, that’s great – we’re looking forward to seeing you. If you’ve not RSvP’d, please be sure to do so by May 31st so that we can reserve space for you. Also remember that you must return a signed NDA before attending the design preview

    If you did not receive an invitation, please reply (to both me and Ellen Tucker) with your fax number, so that we can fax you an invitation.

    Best regards,

    Sara Williams
    Manager, OLE Evangelism
    Microsoft Developer Relations

    [...]

    Noah,

    I wanted to give you an update on the issues that we discussed during our phone call last week.

    As I mentioned on the phone, there are several other ISVs who have very successfully implemented OLE Control Containers, based solely on Kraig Brockschmidt’s sample and accompanying document. In fact, I met another one last week. So, I find it difficult to understand why you feel that you don’t have all the information that you need. A list of issues that you feel are unclear or ambiguous in the specification and Kraig’s document and sample would be very helpful to me.

    However, I’m working with our VB group to see if they will consider you as a beta candidate. This would be with a special non-disclosure agreement that listed the specific developers who could use the VB beta, that they would use it solely for the purpose of testing your OLE controls implementations and that those developers would have no contact with the groups at Lotus who are working on potentially competitive technology. Again, I have not heard back from the VB group; I will let you know when I do.

    I am still looking into your questions about using the property set code from the CDK, and I’ll let you know as soon as I’ve got an answer for you.

    Sara Williams

  2. Stephen said,

    July 30, 2007 at 3:41 am

    Gravatar

    Storming analysis. Will the leopard change it spots under the current leadership? Interesting to watch this pan out.

What Else is New


  1. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  2. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  3. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  4. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  5. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  6. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  7. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  8. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  9. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  10. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  11. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  12. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  13. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  14. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  15. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  16. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  17. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  18. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  19. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  20. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  21. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  22. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  23. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)



  24. Journalism 101: Do Not Believe Anything That Benoît Battistelli and the EPO's Management Say (Also Don't Fall for the UPC Hype)

    A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they're wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli's department)



  25. Patent Law Firms, David Kappos, and IAM 'Magazine' Still Shelter Software Patents by Cherry-Picking and Lobbying

    Amid the gradual collapse of software patents in the United States there are disingenuous efforts to bring them back or maintain a perception that these patents are still potent



  26. Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls Going Places and Suing Microsoft Rivals, Microsoft Wants More 'Linux Patent Tax'

    Microsoft-connected patent trolls like Larry Horn's MobileMedia are still attacking Microsoft rivals and Microsoft wants more money from Korea, after it attacked Linux with software patents over there (notably Samsung and LG)



  27. Links 22/9/2016: Linux Professional Institute Redesign, Red Hat Upgraded

    Links for the day



  28. Links 22/9/2016: Red Hat's Latest Results, GNOME 3.22 Released

    Links for the day



  29. The Patent Law Firms in the US Relentlessly Lobby for Software Patents Resurgence by Placing Emphasis Only on Rare Outcomes

    Decisions against software patents continue to be ignored or intentionally overlooked by patent law firms, which instead saturate the media with the few cases where courts unexpectedly rule in favour of software patents



  30. Links 21/9/2016: Lenovo Helps Microsoft Block GNU/Linux Installations

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts