Comments on: Microsoft’s Press on OOXML: Admission of Misconduct http://techrights.org/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/comment-page-1/#comment-7614 Roy Schestowitz Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:45:46 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/#comment-7614 <blockquote> 99%+ aligned with Microsoft interests. </blockquote> Well, just watch that headline... Return of the Champ. Here is a good comment: "<em>April 03, 2008 | comment by Sean Keeney from Cheltenham, UK This isn't a football game, it's a decision that will affect the archiving of a huge lump of our society's documents for years to come. Quit with the cheer leading idiocy. Also, I seem to remember George W proclaiming victory after a week of 'shock and awe'. Remind me how that turned out again? Microsoft have bought the battle, it doesn't mean they'll win the war.</em>" PJ says: <em>"My, I hope the EU Commission reads that. You mean the goal of OOXML wasn't interoperability after all? It's for anticompetitive purposes? My stars. Who'd a thunk it?"</em> I have never seen RPC heckling Microsoft and I've been through literally hundreds of articles from there.

99%+ aligned with Microsoft interests.

Well, just watch that headline… Return of the Champ. Here is a good comment:

“April 03, 2008 | comment by Sean Keeney from Cheltenham, UK
This isn’t a football game, it’s a decision that will affect the archiving of a huge lump of our society’s documents for years to come. Quit with the cheer leading idiocy. Also, I seem to remember George W proclaiming victory after a week of ‘shock and awe’. Remind me how that turned out again? Microsoft have bought the battle, it doesn’t mean they’ll win the war.”

PJ says:

“My, I hope the EU Commission reads that. You mean the goal of OOXML wasn’t interoperability after all? It’s for anticompetitive purposes? My stars. Who’d a thunk it?”

I have never seen RPC heckling Microsoft and I’ve been through literally hundreds of articles from there.

]]> By: SubSonica http://techrights.org/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/comment-page-1/#comment-7608 SubSonica Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:54:08 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/#comment-7608 In a second read the article seems to have a rather ironic tone, but nontheless what is true is that "turn away from open source and run back to sweet mama Microsoft " is exactly the sole purpose of MSOOXML an the whole ISO charade. Legal relationships aside, that channel partner publication is, no doubt, 99%+ aligned with Microsoft interests. In a second read the article seems to have a rather ironic tone, but nontheless what is true is that “turn away from open source and run back to sweet mama Microsoft ” is exactly the sole purpose of MSOOXML an the whole ISO charade. Legal relationships aside, that channel partner publication is, no doubt, 99%+ aligned with Microsoft interests.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/comment-page-1/#comment-7607 Roy Schestowitz Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:40:09 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/#comment-7607 That's why I wrote "Almost right from the horse’s mouth…" From Microsoft itself (the 'horse') we have already heard that it's "a simple matter of Microsoft's commercial interests." That’s why I wrote “Almost right from the horse’s mouth…”

From Microsoft itself (the ‘horse’) we have already heard that it’s “a simple matter of Microsoft’s commercial interests.”

]]> By: Tomas de Torquemada http://techrights.org/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/comment-page-1/#comment-7605 Tomas de Torquemada Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:13:33 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/04/ooxml-admission-of-misconduct/#comment-7605 There you have it, all the proof you'll ever need - except for one small issue. RCP is not a Microsoft owned publication, it belongs to 1105 Media Inc., whoever they are. They claim to have no legal affiliation with Microsoft whatsoever in their FAQ, and I'm guessing it would be illegal for them to claim that if it was not true. So, it isn't exactally "from the horses mouth", just a noise from a horse with a similar sounding name. There you have it, all the proof you’ll ever need – except for one small issue.

RCP is not a Microsoft owned publication, it belongs to 1105 Media Inc., whoever they are. They claim to have no legal affiliation with Microsoft whatsoever in their FAQ, and I’m guessing it would be illegal for them to claim that if it was not true.

So, it isn’t exactally “from the horses mouth”, just a noise from a horse with a similar sounding name.

]]>