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

03.12.08

Dirty OOXML Tricks Revisited; “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” Strategy Redefined

Posted in Antitrust, Formats, ISO, Microsoft, Mono, Open XML, Standard at 12:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The press is far from over discussing some of the misbehavior we have witnessed over the past couple of years. Although discussions about OOXML ought to have been just technical, they ended up getting mixed in the face of endless misconduct. Which shall one criticise more and bring more attention to: the technical hoax that is OOXML or the corruptions which OOXML has revealed?

Pieter has published a good new piece which looks at both aspects of this.

To conclude, Microsoft have, with OOXML, shot themselves in both feet, then put the bloody stumps into their big mouth and chewed, hard and long. They created a fradulent process by corrupting ISO at a high level. They engaged national bodies in this process, then bought and bullied those bodies into voting “properly”. And when the committees refused to be intimidated, they went to ministers and tried to bribe them. They used their press and astroturfing budgets to sell this as a fair and necessary process. They pretended that they were the victim, of an autocratic ODF and a manipulative IBM.

This excellent summary is all very truthful, and it can be accompanied by well-documented evidence to back the claims. IT Pro has published a new article as well and it emphasises the failures of the standardisation process. Here is a portion of the text:

A toxic leech

OOXML is controversial for a number of reasons. Critics argue that OOXML is not so much a specification as a description of Microsoft’s existing proprietary data formats, complete with the replication of historic bugs, the most notorious being the treatment of 1900 as a leap year. The specification was derived internally to describe Microsoft’s current data formats, and has not benefitted from the usual wide-ranging debate and participation from competing interests, hammering out their differences to find the points they have in common, that accompany the conventional definition of a standard.

A standard is intended to facilitate multiple implementations of a protocol or data format, not to give validation to the one existing implementation of that format. There have also been complaints that, despite the fact that over 3500 comments were raised against the original specification, delegates weren’t able to suggest amendments that contradicted Microsoft’s current implementation.

[...]

In truth, the opposition has come from all quarters, and has been most vocal among those interested in open standards, which includes everybody from governments through to representatives of the free and open source software movement, and also includes many parties with an interest in maintaining open access and network neutrality for civil or commercial reasons, including the likes of IBM, Google and Oracle.

OOXML translation

Rob Wier reminds his readers that OOXML is saturated with the same characteristics one typically finds in “Embrace, Extend and Extinguish” tactics. OOXML’s licence [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and dynamicity, not to mention Mono dependencies in broken and lossy translation, may all be signs of things to come. They justify the need to intercept OOXML, which is falsely advertised as a case of opening up (realistically, more like broadening, as in ‘extending’ and moving goalposts).

Here begins the lesson on Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (EEE). Classically, this technique is used to perpetuate vendor lock-in by introducing small incompatibilities into a standard interface, in order to prevent effective interoperability, or (shudder) even substitutability of competing products based on that interface. This EEE strategy has worked well so far for Microsoft, with the web browser, with Java, with Kerberos, etc. It is interesting to note that this technique can work equally well with Microsoft’s own standards, like OOXML.

[...]

So, by failing to include this in their conformance clause, OOXML’s use of the term “implementation-defined” is toothless. It just means “We don’t want to tell you this information” or “We don’t want to interoperate”. Conformant applications are not required to actually document how they extend the standard. You can look at Microsoft Office 2007 as a prime example. Where is this documentation that explains how Office 2007 implements these “implementation-defined” features? How is interoperability promoted without this?

Groklaw has some good articles covering “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish”, so you are encouraged to read older stories such as this one.

You’ll hear some emails read aloud, one of Bill Gates’s, an email from 1996 about Java, where he says he was losing sleep over how great Java was, and you’ll see a strategy he suggested — “fully supporting Java and extending it in a Windows/Microsoft way”.

[...]

Well, when applets are cross-platform, it expands the number of applications that are available to you so you can go to a website. And if you have a Linux computer or a Macintosh computer or a Windows 3.1 computer, you can get an application and it will run.

You don’t have to either select a specific application or hope that the independent software vendor or the website created the application for your platform. So it would increase the number of applications available to you.

This one is good also:

“Ronald Alepin, an independent consultant and former CTO for Fujitsu, disputed the idea that Microsoft had been an innovator in the field. He said that interoperability protocols were developed by companies other than Microsoft, and that Microsoft has simply extended the protocols and then refused to disclose the extensions. In so doing, he told the court, Microsoft “has hijacked standard interoperability protocols agreed by the entire industry.”

As the previous post from an anonymised contributor insists, it is very unlikely that Microsoft has changed its ways (nor that it ever will). It’s the same old tricks, with the addition of software patents. in a disguise named “open”, or “interop”. And there is always some invasive Microsoft agent who tries to sell this to us.

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

What Else is New


  1. Links 20/10/2019: GNU/Linux at Penn Manor School District, Wine-Staging 4.18, Xfce 4.16 Development, FreeBSD 12.1 RC2

    Links for the day



  2. Guest Post: Understanding Autism for More Complete Inclusion

    "...assuming that autistic people are all the same isn't only technically wrong, it is misleading and leads to harmful and needless misunderstandings."



  3. Guest Post: Free Software Freedom is Not a Freedom of Choice

    The concept of "Freedom of Choice" and how the ruling class uses it to give a false impression of "Freedom"



  4. Guest Post: Free Software Developers and Pursuing 'Market Share'

    "The only people interested in software freedom are (almost always) free software developers. And users are interested in freedom to a very limited extent: the "free beer" side. Even many free software developers are only interested in the "free beer" part of free software."



  5. The Assertion That Microsoft Uses Communist Tactics Against GNU/Linux and Free/Libre Software

    A study of Taistoism might help understand how Free/libre software is being undermined



  6. European Patent Office and US Patent and Trademark Office Cranks Discovered Buzzwords, Stopped Worrying, Started Granting Patents They Know to be Fake

    The world's patent repositories are being saturated with loads of junk patents or patents that have no legal bearing but can still be leveraged for extortion purposes; the EPO is resorting to lies and artificially-elevated buzzwords to justify granting such fake (yet ruinous) patents



  7. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 19, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 19, 2019



  8. “The True Hypocrite is the One Who Ceases to Perceive His Deception, the One Who Lies With Sincerity,” Said André Paul Guillaume Gide (Nobel Prize in Literature)

    Lies flow like water in the realm of EPO and its publishers, whose sole role is dissemination of deliberate falsehoods, misnomers and misinformation



  9. The EPO Cannot Guard Fake European Patents From Scrutiny (in the Long Run)

    Legal certainty associated with newly-granted European Patents is already pretty low and as long as the EPO refuses to acknowledge that its courts (or boards) lack autonomy the EPO merely brushes a growing problem under the rug



  10. Links 19/10/2019: DeX Discontinued, DXVK 1.4.3 and Wine 4.18 Released

    Links for the day



  11. 'Corporate Linux' Will Not Protect Software Freedom

    The corporate model is inherently not compatible with software that users themselves fully control (or Software Freedom in general), so we must rely on another model of sovereignty over code and compiled code (binaries)



  12. IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 18, 2019

    IRC logs for Friday, October 18, 2019



  13. 26,000 Posts

    We want to thank those who help spread the word; it gives us moral support and morale.



  14. The Myth of 'Analysts'

    People with exaggerated roles (exaggerated by corporate media and corporations that control them) distort public perceptions about their clients; they're in effect just elevated marketing or Public Relations (PR) operatives



  15. The FSF Has Two Acting Presidents Now

    Alexandre Oliva, who acted as a sort of deputy of Richard Stallman in recent weeks, sheds some much-needed light on the current situation



  16. Should Anybody Dictate the Free Software Movement?

    "There's a great myth, as Jagadees reminds us, that advocacy doesn't produce software. That myth is corporate, and proper advocacy has at times produced the greatest software in the history of computing. If we want great Free software to continue, we need advocacy more than ever."



  17. Links 18/10/2019: More KDE Events and OpenBSD 6.6

    Links for the day



  18. We Don't Know Who Will Run the Free Software Foundation, But We Know Who Will Run the GNU Project

    Software Freedom is under a heavy and perhaps unprecedented attack; some people out there are paid by the attackers to celebrate this attack and defame people (cheering for corporate takeover under the blanket of “Open Source”), but the founder of the Free software movement remains alive, well, and very much active



  19. New EPO Meme: Who Wants to Make Billions From a 'Public' Monopoly?

    What was supposed to be a cash-balanced patent office became a money-making monster that fakes ‘crises’ to attack hard-working examiners



  20. EmacsConf Without Richard Stallman

    Now that emacs is being 'rebranded' this kind of meme seems apt



  21. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 17, 2019

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 17, 2019



  22. Guest Article: In the Absence of Richard Stallman OEM Source Software ('Open Source') is Trying to Hijack Even Emacs

    "Now they have to create some fictional history. No need to worry."



  23. Guest Article: Techies Should Not Dictate the Free Software Movement

    "We should start a second phase of the Free software movement that's making good software and putting users at the center."



  24. Links 17/10/2019: Ubuntu Turns 15, New Codename Revealed, Ubuntu 19.10 is Out

    Links for the day



  25. Free as in Free Speech (Restrictions May Apply)

    When limits of speech are not safety-related rules but political correctness or conformism



  26. There Won't be Patent Justice Until Patent Trolling Becomes Completely and Totally Extinct

    SLAPP-like behaviour and extortion/blackmail tactics using patent monopolies are a stain on the patent system; it's time to adopt measures to stop these things once and for all, bearing in mind they're inherently antithetical to the goal/s of the patent system and therefore discourage public support for this whole system



  27. EPO Staff Union and Staff Representatives Ought to Demand EPO Stops Bullying Publishers and Censoring Their Sites

    An often neglected if not forgotten aspect of EPO tyranny is the war on information itself; EPO management continues to show hostility towards journalism and disdain for true information



  28. Bribes, Lies, Fundamental Violations of the Law and Cover-Up: This is Today's European Patent Office

    It has gotten extremely difficult to hold the conspirators accountable for turning Europe’s patent office into a ‘printing machine’ of the litigation industry and amassing vast amounts of money (to be passed to private, for-profit companies)



  29. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) Lost Almost Half (3 Out of 8) Board Members in Only One Month

    As the old saying goes, a picture (or screenshot) is worth a thousand words



  30. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 16, 2019

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 16, 2019


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

Recent Posts