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

01.14.08

The Microsoft OOXML Spin Factory Reaches Full Production Mode (Updatedx2)

Posted in Deception, Formats, FUD, Microsoft, Novell, Open XML at 11:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

With proxies like these, who needs advocates?

Several people, including Rob Weir (just yesterday in fact), said this was coming. The Propaganda Machine is hard at work and it will have you believe that OOXML is the Second Coming. You might be wondering what are we talking about. Where does one even begin? There is is a DDOS of disinformation at the moment.

“Previously, the Burton Group also did some anti-Google Apps ‘studies’, so they lost credibility a long time ago.”One of Microsoft’s favourite sockpuppets, the Burton Group, is at it again (there is proven history here [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]). Once again it defends the Microsoft Cash Cow (Office). Previously, the Burton Group also did some anti-Google Apps ‘studies’, so they lost credibility a long time ago. We once described the tricky business of disclosure and also discussed examples like Frost & Sullivan, IDC and Gartner.

About the Burton Group, one source has another take: “My impression is a bit different. They seem to be like a lot of other market analysis firms, who function both as hired “experts” and as independent experts. The ethic there is that market analysis firms are expected to disclose in their reports if they’ve been paid for producing the report.” This analysis escapes the fact that there are also investors in these firms. For example, Bill Gates invests in Gartner and IDC. They will always be loyal to regular customers and investors. Without companies like Microsoft and Oracle, they would be out on the street.

The bottom line here is that what the Burton Group says has in some sense already been corrupted by the fact that that such firms cannot make a living just through subscription that enables access to studies. There must be more powers at play. By someone who is not pro-ODF we are told: “How any firm could advise enterprises to adopt either OOXML or ODF before the ISO battles are over on both OOXML and ODF v. 1.2 is beyond me. There’s very strong energy behind both harmonization and convergence. The chances are just too great that both standards will be so altered that those who take the plunge before will be left without application support.

According to Stephen Walli, Microsoft might just implement ODF at the end, simply to address need. It is inevitable. You will find some further coverage of Microsoft spin and disinformation here.

Meanwhile a spin factory sends out success stories that most bloggers find worthless to discuss. It is possible to get the Krauts on board that are supposed to review OOXML but would OOXML survive a review by the crowds?

Don’t believe anything anyone tells you. Also try to find out who is who and in which direction money flows. Some estimate that Microsoft has already invested (spent) billions of dollars in the ‘purchase’ of OOXML support. Novell happens to be one of these investments.

Update: The apple never falls far from the tree.

Midvale, Utah-based Burton Group said that the report was neither commissioned nor paid for by Microsoft. However, Burton analyst Peter O’Kelly, one of the report’s co-authors, is scheduled to make a presentation at an Open XML press briefing that Microsoft plans to hold in the Seattle area on Wednesday. Also speaking will be multiple Microsoft executives involved in the Open XML standards-ratification effort.

For OOXML, Microsoft has already done this type of tango with IDC, among others. It was another Microsoft-backed pro-OOXML study. CompTIA, another lobbying arm for Microsoft, does this too. What a world we live in!

Update #2: Here is another good article about this.

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

24 Comments

  1. Vexorian said,

    January 15, 2008 at 10:09 am

    Gravatar

    There is a typo in the very first character of the post…

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 15, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Gravatar

    Oh, yeah. Thanks. I should really proofread properly. :-)

  3. paul said,

    January 16, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Gravatar

    Read this. Then do what I did. Send a copy of the PDF to your ISO delegate. A link is included in the article.

    http://www.fanaticattack.com/2008/ooxml-questions-microsoft-cannot-answer-in-geneva.html

    Here is a copy of my email to the rep. BTW, they were nice enough to respond and forward it to two other others; one at itic.org and another at ANSI.

    Here’s my email…

    To the USA ISO delegate:

    I request a complete resolution for all issues raised by the comments to Microsoft’s OOXML ISO application (see attached file ‘ooxmlquestionsforMS.pdf’), both the technical and non-technical issues, as a pre-condition before OOXML is granted ISO status.

    I work in web development and know only too well how inefficient Microsoft makes this business. Because they insist on protecting their monopoly, they will continue to pass additional cost to the public without any remorse by imposing their sub-standard, proprietary products on us all. As open source software becomes adopted more and more in the emerging economies, we will find ourselves constrained by a ‘software albatross’ if we continue to permit them to hobble existing or new technologies. Otherwise we will waste more time and money dealing with their deficient products.

    They need to comply and learn how to adapt to the new business model of openess. The underlying philosophy of standards as demonstrated by the ISO group has already demonstrated the value of sharing information.

    By supporting this effort, it sends a clear message that others expect this of them and then, perhaps, it will help motivate them to change.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

  4. paul said,

    January 16, 2008 at 11:07 am

    Gravatar

    BTW, I still think that we should start a page that lists research groups, journalists, etc that choose to damage their credibility by publishing obvious FUD about m$ or anything anti-GNU/Linux and OSS.

    We could give them a 0 (zero) to 5 rating. The worst being ’0′, of course.

    There shouldn’t be any liability issues. I figure that they have an opinion so we can have an opinion about their opinions. If we think their info is poorly researched and mostly lies, hey, we’re doing a public service. It would be a ‘Review of the Reviewers.’

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 16, 2008 at 11:26 am

    Gravatar

    Paul, I’d love to do it and I’m not reluctant to put this in as a static page in the site. Let me make a start (expect typos).

    Peter Galli: 2
    Rob Enderle: 0
    Steven Vaughan: 5
    Jeff Gould: 0
    Alex Wolfe: 1
    Paul McDougal: 2
    Charles Babcock: 2
    Pamela Jones: 5
    Matt Hartley: 3
    Gartner Group: 2
    IDC: 1
    Frost and Sullivan: 2
    Forrester: 3
    Yankee Group: 0
    Burton Group: 1
    451 Group: 4
    Bruce Byfield: 2
    Robin Miller: 3
    Joe Wilcox: 2
    Mary Jo Foley: 3
    Dana Blakenhorn: 4
    Brian Proffitt: 4
    Jim Finkle: 1
    Dan Lyons: 1
    Var Guy (JP): 2
    Ed Bott: 0
    George Ou: 0
    Ina Fried: 1
    Matt Asay: 3
    Stephen Shankland: 4
    Matt Aslett: 4

    [...]

    Add some more to the “FUD index” and we can tidy it all up later. :-)

  6. paul said,

    January 16, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Gravatar

    Outstanding, Roy.

    I’m in agreement re the names that I recognize (not many). It strikes me that cred re Gartner (aka, Partner), IDC, and Yankee has been going downhill as Linux awareness has increased. Very encouraging. Enderle… I think he does what he does just for attention. He likes being the center of controversy. Consequently, he always has a whole different agenda for his reviews.

    And Steve and Pam are the ‘go to’ folks for me most of the time.

    I really hope something like this can help people that are new to GNU/Linux (that’s once for Richard) and FOSS. Actually it might help a lot of folks. As a matter of fact, it’ll help me. I’m going to check out some of the 4′s that I’m not familiar with just so I might have a broader base of info.

    And maybe, if this gets popular, the knuckleheads that spew FUD will stop and think about their credibility rating.

    The Linux community typically is pretty quick at debunking garbage surveys or skewed reviews. So this is just one more service that we offer to mankind.

    Thanks again, Roy.

  7. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 16, 2008 at 10:47 pm

    Gravatar

    Paul, here is something preliminary.

    http://boycottnovell.com/credibility-index/

    I’ll have it updated as I go along, but generally, having read through or glanced at tens of thousands of articles in the past year, I have a fairly good idea of people’s inclinations. Putting this ‘mental blacklist’ out in public will make me a few (un/happy) enemies, but maybe it will also encourage them to improve.

  8. NoCaDrummer said,

    January 17, 2008 at 12:54 am

    Gravatar

    To Roy, I’d move Mary Jo Foley up by at least one to a 4. In her latest byline at ZDnet.com, she pretty well just repeats the Burton study which “advises IT planners to go OOXML”. She’s made no other investigation. Just read the study, pulled most of her article from it (as quoted paragraphs), and put her smiling face and tagline, “An unblinking eye on Microsoft” on it.
    When I think “unblinking eye” I think of Sauron’s flaming eye from Lord of the Rings. I’d say hers was more like that of the ancients who would stare at the moon too long, and thus became luna… well, you get the idea.
    While she claims no stock in or direct financial gain from Microsoft, the stories from her that I read seem far gentler to Microsoft’s screw-ups or actions than should be expected. Perhaps there’s more editing of her column AFTER it leaves her desk (I know that’s happened to me and other writers), so I perhaps I be too harsh on her. Maybe someone who IS paid by MS gets the final cuts at the articles.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 17, 2008 at 1:04 am

    Gravatar

    NoCaDrummer,

    Well, I’ve read her since the older days when she ran Microsoft-Watch. She totally screwed up a while ago when she flamed Mac users and even prematurely admitted pulling a Dvorak. That latest bit about her defending this ‘study’ (announcing in the opening paragraph that it’s independent) made me almost as sick as when I found out she pushed out that blog item of hers out to the press (yes, outside ZDNet, which is unusually rare).

    Do remember that, just like Ed Bott, she has made her career out of Microsoft. If Microsoft falls, she will need a career change and she will lose her status overnight. Thus, she’s protective of the company. She interviewed Bill Gates when they were both in their 20s and I can see she’s worried at the moment because high-tier Microsoft staff is leaving (these people see things we are not allowed to see).

    About that smile, don’t buy it. All her other public photos show a very opinionated character. What moral person would be capable of praising and learning about a company that bribes, lies, bullies, and breaks the law on a very frequent basis?

  10. paul said,

    January 17, 2008 at 10:50 am

    Gravatar

    Hey, does Secunia fit into this somewhere? I see in TechWorld (http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=11154&email ) they’ve done their yearly report implying that m$ is more secure than Red Hat.

  11. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 17, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Gravatar

    I’m not sure about Secunia, but I know about McAfee. The TechWorld article isn’t as well-balanced as this:

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292173,00.htm

    Secunia said that while Red Hat had more reported vulnerabilities than Windows, it was not possible to compare its relative security with Microsoft products, or comment on the relative security of open-source versus proprietary products based on vulnerability figures.

    It’s impossible to make a fair comparison — it’s like comparing apples to oranges,” Thomas Kristensen, Secunia’s chief technology officer, told ZDNet.co.uk. “Red Hat has the highest number of applications included, so the number of vulnerabilities that affect it is bound to be higher.

  12. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Gravatar

    Of course, the Free Software Credibility Index only applies to things that deals with free software. Many of those who gets low credibility in this list are OK when dealing with Microsoft software.

  13. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Gravatar

    The best one to choose in my opinion are those that get a 3 on this list.

  14. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    Gravatar

    If you want someone unbiased, that is.

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Gravatar

    Some of them indeed depend on the success of Microsoft. Their career is, conversely, hinged on the failure of Free software.

  16. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Gravatar

    >Some of them indeed depend on the success of Microsoft. Their career is, >conversely, hinged on the failure of Free software.
    I though those who get a 2 or 3 on the list shouldn’t.

  17. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Gravatar

    And those who get a 2 or 3 on the list should not depend on the failure of Microsoft either.

  18. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    Gravatar

    BTW, in fairness MS is not the only one that bribes, lies, bullies, and breaks the law on a very frequent basis. There are many corporations in the world that does that.

  19. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 27, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Gravatar

    For example, the corruption of the FDA by drug companies had made it useless.

  20. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 27, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Gravatar

    There are many corporations in the world that does that.

    I agree with you, Yuhong. I only have the capacity to study a few whose existence is relevant to Free software.

    Prevalence does not justify criminal activity and the only way to improve matters is by pointing out the problem.

  21. Jeremy said,

    April 9, 2008 at 11:02 am

    Gravatar

    May I submit that Preston Gralla (who writes for Computerworld) be included on this list with a credibility rating of 0 after this appalling article: http://blogs.computerworld.com/five_reasons_why_vista_beats_mac_os_x

  22. Roy Schestowitz said,

    April 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Gravatar

    I saw some of his articles before. Some were OK and some were appalling. I’ll add him with a 1.

  23. Yuhong Bao said,

    April 9, 2008 at 5:14 pm

    Gravatar

    Ken Brown and Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, in my opinion, are the worst. He claims that Linux was copied from Minux without evidence.

  24. Roy Schestowitz said,

    April 9, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    Gravatar

    I’ve heard of them before. As for Ken Brown, he was paid by Microsoft to say this.

    “A couple of years ago this guy called Ken Brown wrote a book saying that Linus stole Linux from me… It later came out that Microsoft had paid him to do this…”

    –Andrew S Tanenbaum, father on MINIX

What Else is New


  1. JUVE Creates English Site, Promotes Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The generally good press outlet has taken a turn for the worse; it looks like it's doing more lobbying than reporting nowadays



  2. The Indian Ministry of Commerce Tries to Bend Patent Law in Favour of Foreign Monopolies

    There's an attempt to tilt patent law against the interests of India; but vigilant few are observing and reporting it, even in English



  3. The EFF Must Return That 'Internship' Money to Google or It Would Disgrace the Patent Reform Movement (by Association)

    Whether real or perceived, the EFF’s alleged bias is at stake now that Google money — not just money from a billionaire (Cuban) — lands on its lap; it can, by extension or association, serve to discredit patent reformers



  4. EPO Defying Patent Restrictions/Limits From the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Countries It Claims to Represent

    The departure from the EPC (and from the rule of law) at the EPO still means that patents are being granted on things that, as per the constitutions, should never have been patentable



  5. The UPC is Dead. But Bristows is Now Fully Engaged in Necrophilia.

    In an effort to float a dead project the deceiving folks from Team UPC pretend that everything is ready to go (commence) because they've managed to find some gowns and robes



  6. Links 19/1/2019: Wikipedia Cofounder Moves to GNU/Linux, Wine 4.0 RC7 Released, Godot 3.1 Beta 2, NomadBSD 1.2 RC1

    Links for the day



  7. Links 18/1/2019: Mesa 18.3.2, Rust 1.32.0

    Links for the day



  8. Links 17/1/2019: ZFS Debate Returns, AWS Pains Free Software

    Links for the day



  9. US Patent Lawyers Will Need to Change Profession or End up Becoming Abundantly Redundant, Unemployed

    In the age of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 it’s too risky to sue with dodgy patents; moreover, the Federal Circuit‘s growing adoption of Alice means that no recent cases have given hope to patent maximalists and litigation frequency has fallen again (at double-digit rates)



  10. Links 16/1/2019: Deepin 15.9 Released and Mozilla Fenix

    Links for the day



  11. Brexit Has Failed, But So Has the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Even though all signs indicate that the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will never become a reality spin is to be expected from Team UPC, still looking to profit from more litigation and expanded scope



  12. IBM, Which Will Soon be Buying Red Hat, is Promoting Software Patents in Europe

    Even days apart/within confirmation of IBM's takeover of Red Hat IBM makes it clear that it's very strongly in favour of software patents, not only in the US but also in Europe



  13. Team UPC on Dead UPC: Choosing Gowns for Corpses

    The campaign of lies, long waged by Team UPC in order to manipulate politicians and courts, hasn’t stopped even in 2019 (IAM threw in the towel, but some of Team UPC is still ‘embalming’ UPCA)



  14. Links 15/1/2019: MX Linux MX-18 Continuum Reviewed, Mageia 7 Artwork Voting

    Links for the day



  15. Council of Europe (CoE) Recognises There's No Justice at the EPO

    It’s now the Council of Europe‘s turn to speak out about the grave state of international organisations that exist in Europe but aren’t subjected to European law (which they routinely violate with impunity)



  16. Dominion Harbor -- Armed by Microsoft's Biggest Patent Troll -- Goes After the World's Biggest Android OEMs, Huawei and Samsung

    Dominion Harbor, the patent troll that gets bucketloads of patents from Intellectual Ventures (a patent troll strongly connected to Microsoft and Bill Gates), is still suing using shell entities



  17. Links 14/1/2019: Linux 5.0 RC2 and DXVK 0.95 Released

    Links for the day



  18. Only the Higher Courts -- Not Trump's 'Poster Child' -- Can Bring Back Software Patents

    Software patents are not making a "comeback" as some like to claim; in fact, the latest court cases and notably their outcomes suggest that nothing has changed



  19. “Uniloc is a Lawsuit Factory”

    Apple is a very secretive company, so it is hard to know what goes on with the patent troll Uniloc



  20. European Patent Office a Textbook Example of Lawless, Rogue Institutions

    The tyrannical nature of the EPO is still being demonstrated by the sad fate of Patrick Corcoran; technical judges at the EPO are feeling intimidated by nontechnical politicians and bankers



  21. No, Software Patents Are Not Poised to Make a Comeback Under New US Patent Office Rules

    Poor understanding of the difference between patent courts and patent offices is to blame for widely-spread misinformation from Ars Technica (part of Condé Nast)



  22. IP Kat Has Turned From EPO Critic (to the Point of Being Blocked by the EPO) to EPO Whitewasher That Gags EPO Whistleblowers

    The EPO tried to forcibly gag (block) IP Kat like it blocks Techrights (since 2014); failing that, the EPO got the blog to just act as a whitewashing operation for Team Campinos (more or less the same as Team Battistelli)



  23. Linspire 'Reborn' is Still Working for Microsoft and Facilitating Surveillance on GNU/Linux Users

    GNU/Linux spyware scandals may be back (and it's not about Canonical and Amazon but Linspire and Microsoft); Microsoft is meanwhile exposing innocent kids to pedophiles and it refuses to explain or defend this



  24. Links 12/1/2019: Wine 4.0 RC6, X-Plane 11.30, SuperTuxKart 0.10 Beta, LibreOffice 6.2 RC2

    Links for the day



  25. The EPO's Low Patent Quality Can Kill the European Software Industry and Kill People Too

    The patents granted by the EPO are often invalid as per courts' decisions, which means that fake/illegitimate European Patents saturate the market and discourage development (e.g. of software and life-saving drugs)



  26. The Fiction That Spain (or Italy) Can Salvage the UPC

    The proponents/lobbyists of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), firms that make money from patent litigation (we collectively call these "Team UPC"), are nowadays backpedaling, having come to grips with the death of the UPC, realising it's time to save face by pretending everything they said in the past wasn't a lie



  27. Links 11/1/2019: IBM-Red Hat Obstacle Cleared, Toyota Chooses Linux

    Links for the day



  28. EPO President “Campinos is Wasting His Credibility With “Sweet” Communiqués Full of Hot Air and Storytelling”

    EPO insiders insist if not demand that all those responsible for the corruption and the abuses be removed; Campinos has done the opposite by promoting those who caused harm and turning his overseer into his subordinate



  29. The Emptiness of the Linux Foundation's Commitment to Linux and Its True Openness... to Corporate Cash (in Exchange for Influence)

    Like Pence and Moreno, who exchange a political refugee for loans, the Linux Foundation abandons its commitment to GNU/Linux in exchange for maximisation of financial contributions



  30. Links 10/1/2019: Linux 4.20.1, GNOME 3.31.4 Released

    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