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. Criticism of Unitary Patent (UPC) Agreement Doomed the UPC and Patent Trolls' Plan -- Along With the Litigation Lobby -- for Unified 'Extortion Vector'

    The Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC) was the trolls' weapon against potentially millions of European businesses; but those businesses have woken up to the fact that it was against their interests and European member states such as Spain and Poland now oppose it while Germany halts ratification



  2. It Wasn't Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The EPO scandals deepen in light of a very major scandal which has occupied the French media for a couple of months



  3. Links 20/9/2018: 2018 Linux Audio Miniconference and Blackboard's Openwashing

    Links for the day



  4. Links 19/9/2018: Chromebooks Get More DEBs, LLVM 7.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  5. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  6. Today's European Patent Office (EPO) Works for Large, Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies in Pursuit of Patents on Nature, Life, and Essential/Basic Drugs

    The never-ending insanity which is patents on DNA/genome/genetics and all sorts of basic things that are put together like a recipe in a restaurant; patents are no longer covering actual machinery that accomplishes unique tasks in complicated ways, typically assembled from scratch by humans; some supposed 'inventions' are merely born into existence by the natural splitting of organisms or conception (e.g. pregnancy)



  7. The EPO Has Quit Pretending That It Cares About Patent Quality, All It Cares About is Quantity of Lawsuits

    A new interview with Roberta Romano-Götsch, as well as the EPO's promotion of software patents alongside CIPA (Team UPC), is an indication that the EPO has ceased caring about quality and hardly even pretends to care anymore



  8. Qualcomm's Escalating Patent Wars Have Already Caused Massive Buybacks (Loss of Reserves) and Loss of Massive Clients

    Qualcomm's multi-continental patent battles are an effort to 'shock and awe' everyone into its protection racket; but the unintended effect seems to be a move further and further away from 'Qualcomm territories'



  9. Links 17/9/2018: Torvalds Takes a Break, SQLite 3.25.0 Released

    Links for the day



  10. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Helps Prevent Frivolous Software Patent Lawsuits

    PTAB with its quality-improving inter partes reviews (IPRs) is enraging patent maximalists; but by looking to work around it or weaken it they will simply reduce the confidence associated with US patents



  11. Abstract Patents (Things One Can Do With Pen and Paper, Sometimes an Abacus) Are a Waste of Money as Courts Disregard Them

    A quick roundup of patents and lawsuits at the heart of which there's little or no substance; 35 U.S.C. § 101 renders these moot



  12. “Blockchain” Hype and “FinTech”-Like Buzzwords Usher in Software Patents Everywhere, Even Where Such Patents Are Obviously Bunk

    Not only the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) embraces the "blockchain" hype; business methods and algorithms are being granted patent 'protection' (exclusivity) which would likely be disputed by the courts (if that ever reaches the courts)



  13. Qualcomm's Patent Aggression Threatens Rationality of Patent Scope in Europe and Elsewhere

    Qualcomm's dependence on patent taxes (so-called 'royalties' associated with physical devices which it doesn't even make) highlights the dangers now known; the patent thicket has grown too "thick"



  14. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Are Still Desperate to Crush PTAB in the Courts, Not Just in Congress and the Office

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) improve patent quality and are therefore a threat to those who profit from spurious feuding and litigation; they try anything they can to turn things around



  15. IAM, Watchtroll and the EPO Still Spread the Mentality of Patent Maximalism

    The misguided idea that the objective (overall) should be to grant as many monopolies as possible (to spur a lot of litigation) isn't being challenged in echo chamber 'events', set up and sponsored by think tanks and pressure groups of the litigation 'industry'



  16. Watchtroll and Other Proponents of Patent Trolls Are Trying to Change the Law Outside the Courts in Order to Bypass Patent Justice

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) voids almost every software patent — a reality that even the most zealous patent professionals have come to grips with and their way of tackling this ‘problem’ is legislative, albeit nowhere near successful (so far)



  17. Links 16/9/2018: Windows Plays 'Nice' Again, Elisa Music Player 0.3 Beta and Latte Dock 0.8.1

    Links for the day



  18. Slamming Courts and Judges Won't Help the Patent Maximalists; It Can Only Make Things Worse

    Acorda Therapeutics sees its stock price dropping 25% after finding out that its patent portfolio isn't solid, as affirmed by the Federal Circuitn(CAFC); the only way out of this mess is a pursuit of a vastly improved patent quality, thorough patent examination which then offers legal certainty



  19. Patent Trolls Are Still Active and Microsoft is Closely Connected to Many of Them

    A roundup of patent trolls' actions in the United States; Microsoft is connected to a notably high number of these



  20. Advancements in Automobile Technology Won't be Possible With Patent Maximalism

    Advancements in the development of vehicles are being discouraged by a thicket of patents as dumb (and likely invalid) as claims on algorithms and mere shapes



  21. Battistelli “Has Deeply Hurt the Whole Patent Profession, Examiners as Well as Agents” and Also the Image of France

    A French perspective regarding Battistelli's reign at the EPO, which has not really ended but manifests itself or 'metastasises' through colleagues of Battistelli (whom he chose) and another French President (whom he also chose)



  22. António Campinos Needs to Listen to Doctors Without Borders (MSF) et al to Salvage What's Left of Public Consent for the EPO

    Groups including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Médecins du Monde (MdM) have attempted to explain to the EPO, with notoriously French-dominated leadership, that it’s a mistake to work for Gilead at the expense of the public; but António Campinos is just another patent maximalist



  23. The Max Planck Institute's Determination on UPC's (Unitary Patent) Demise is Only “Controversial” in the Eyes of Rabid Members of Team UPC

    Bristows keeps lying like Battistelli; that it calls a new paper "controversial" without providing any evidence of a controversy says a lot about Bristows LLP, both as a firm and the individuals who make up the firm (they would not be honest with their clients, either)



  24. Links 15/9/2018: Wine 3.16, Overwatch's GNU/Linux (Wine) 'Ban', New Fedora 28 Build, and Fedora 29 Beta Delay

    Links for the day



  25. Max Planck Institute Pours More Water on the Dying Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Max Planck Institute gives another sobering reality check for Team UPC to chew on; there's still no sign of any progress whatsoever for the UPC because even Team UPC appears to have given up and moved on



  26. EPO Seals Many Death Sentences With Acceptance of EP 2604620

    Very disappointing news as EP 2604620 withstands scrutiny, assuring that a lot of poor people will not receive much-needed, life-saving treatments



  27. Links 13/9/2018: Compiz Comeback, 'Life is Strange: Before the Storm'

    Links for the day



  28. Now We Have Patents on Rooms. Yes, Rooms!

    The shallow level of what nowadays constitutes "innovation" and merits getting a patent for a couple of decades



  29. EPO Granted a Controversial European Patent (Under Battistelli) Which May Literally Kill a Lot of People

    The EPO (together with CIPA) keeps promoting software patents; patents that are being granted by the EPO literally put lives at risk and have probably already cost a lot of lives



  30. Links 13/9/2018: Parrot 4.2.2, Sailfish OS Nurmonjoki, Eelo Beta

    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