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

11.05.08

OOXML Convenor Might be Shooting the Messenger (Groklaw)

Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument at 7:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees.”

Martin Bryan, Former Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34 WG1

ALEX Brown, a major participant in Microsoft cronyism inside ISO [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22], is not so interested in facts and evidence, such as the simple observation that Microsoft is attempting to grab control ODF [1, 2, 3, 4], having attacked it viciously before.

To make matters worse, smears appear to be making a comeback [1, 2 and they came from Brown’s mouth. He not only denied the obvious but he also dismissed their source, which is typical of Microsoft employees, saying that Groklaw is “unfair”.

However, Alex Brown, the convener of SC34, told ZDNet Asia sister site ZDNet UK at the time that Jones’s post was “chock-full of misinformation and spin”.

When will the posturing end, if ever?

“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”

Larry Goldfarb, investor in SCO

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

11 Comments

  1. Alex Brown said,

    November 6, 2008 at 9:24 am

    Gravatar

    Roy Roy Roy Roy Roy,

    Look – if I wrote (and I would not) “Roy Schestowitz is an idiotic liar”, now *that* would be a personal attack, a “smear”. However, if I wrote “Roy Schestowitz’s blog entry at http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/05/ooxml-convenor-denial/ contains idiotic lies” then that would be an attack on the *content*. Quite different. It also has the merit of being something that any reasonable person can verify for themselves by reading that content.

    Basic rule of enlightened debate: attack the piece (as much as you want), not the person. A rule you very obviously and repeatedly choose to ignore, as here.

    So when I am quoted as saying “Jones’s post was ‘chock-full of misinformation and spin’” that’s fine, and is not (as is inaccurately stated by you) a “smear”, but an attack on the a particular groklaw *post*, which was – yes – a piece of writing that was full of shit.

    - Alex.

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 6, 2008 at 9:32 am

    Gravatar

    How is a list of the participants “full of shit”?

    For the uninitiated, here is the post from Groklaw:

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080825162905645

  3. Alex Brown said,

    November 6, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Gravatar

    Roy

    Life is too short to correct Groklaw’s multitude of mistakes. However, as a special favour, just this once, let us consider your point about the “list of participants”.

    Groklaw stated:

    “Look at this, will you? It has a list of participants in the July meeting in Japan of the SC 34 committee”

    with a link to http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/1055.htm for the word “this”.

    How many mistakes, of fact an analysis, can such a short sentence have? Let’s see shall we.

    First, mistakes of basic fact:

    #1 Groklaw says this was a meeting in Japan. Wrong, it was in London (read the document).

    #2 Groklaw says this was a meeting of SC 34. Wrong, it was a meeting of an “ad hoc group” open to a much wider constituency, and which was was not empowered to make decisions (it was an advisory group who could only advise its convenor – who was me).

    Second, mistakes of analysis:

    #3 Groklaw implies this proves MS controls SC 34. Wrong for two reasons: first this was not a meeting of SC 34. Second MS (and Ecma) have no votes or decision making powers in any meeting under JTC 1. (And no voting took place in any case, since this was an advisory group).

    #4 Groklaw implies MS/Ecma had some kind of untoward interest in this meeting. Errr, the purpose of this meeting was to decide on the maintenance arrangements for OOXML, so Ecma most certainly should have been interested — SC 34 had *invited* them to participate.

    If you just scale this mistake level up to the whole article, you’ll get a very good idea of its overall quality: shit.

    - Alex.

  4. twitter said,

    November 6, 2008 at 10:07 am

    Gravatar

    Enlighten me Alex. You are saying SC 34 does not want to maintain ODF? OOXML is not a laughing stock or byword for corruption?

    If you want to talk about smears, you should be familiar with your company’s other work. Here an example of a typical hit job on Roy in Slashdot. These kinds of people follow his posts on news groups and everywhere else free software advocates go. Here’s a little list of M$ abuse. There’s much more than the few people here have time to document but the spirit of things can be found in M$’s own words Directly and through proxies, M$ is one of the ugliest and most offensive companies in the world.

    Debate tip: get to the point.

  5. twitter said,

    November 6, 2008 at 10:12 am

    Gravatar

    LOL, Alex, SC 34 does not act in M$’s interest. Tell me another one, like why the world needs another document format standard after ISO approved ODF.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 6, 2008 at 10:20 am

    Gravatar

    #1 Groklaw says this was a meeting in Japan. Wrong, it was in London (read the document).

    True, but this does not make a difference because venue is quite irrelevant to the agenda (that’s almost nitpicking). I can recall this meeting clearly because I initially read about it here.

    #3 Groklaw implies this proves MS controls SC 34. Wrong for two reasons: first this was not a meeting of SC 34. Second MS (and Ecma) have no votes or decision making powers in any meeting under JTC 1. (And no voting took place in any case, since this was an advisory group).

    Semantics and procedural details do not change the simple fact that this panel played a role in the process as a whole. Attending the meeting:

    Adam Farquhar (Ecma)
    Alex Brown (UK)
    Benjamin Henrion (BE)
    Brett Roberts (NZ)
    Dave Welsh (US)
    Doug Mahugh (Ecma)
    Francis Cave (GB)
    Isabelle Valet-Harper (Ecma)
    Istvan Sebestyen (Ecma)
    Jasper Hedegaard Bojsen (DK)
    Jean Paoli (Ecma)
    Jean Stride (GB)
    Jesper Lund Stocholm (DK)
    Jirka Kosek (CZ)
    Keld Simonsen (NO)
    Ken Holman (CA)
    Kimmo Bergius (FI)
    Manu Setälä (FI)
    Michiel Leenaars (NL)
    Murata Makoto (JP)
    Patrick Durusau (US)
    Pia Elleby Lange (DK)
    Rex Jaeschke (Ecma)
    Shahzad Rana (NO)
    Wemba Opota (CI)

    From Rob Weir:

    So a quick tally shows that there will be 25 participants, of which 12 are Ecma TC45 members (as listed) or Microsoft employees (Brett Roberts, Dave Welsh, Jasper Bojsen, Kimmo Bergius, Shahzad Rana and Wemba Opota).

    #4 Groklaw implies MS/Ecma had some kind of untoward interest in this meeting.

    That’s what ECMA is paid for, no? That’s what may define the future of multi-million-dollar products from Microsoft, no? But hey, let’s forget about the money. Microsoft and ECMA do this for the empowerment of society, I’m sure.

    Errr, the purpose of this meeting was to decide on the maintenance arrangements for OOXML, so Ecma most certainly should have been interested — SC 34 had *invited* them to participate.

    Who in SC34? And why? The quote from Martin Bryan speaks volumes. With the recent appointment of Jesper Lund Stocholm, it is clear that ISO is a lost cause. Long live OASIS.

  7. twitter said,

    November 6, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Gravatar

    Alex Brown is not an idiotic liar, but the things he writes are full shit and idiotic lies.

  8. twitter said,

    November 6, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Gravatar

    (08:44:21 AM) twitter: So, is that really Alex Brown or some impostor?
    (08:44:37 AM) schestowitz: It’s him
    (08:44:46 AM) twitter: How do you know?
    (08:44:48 AM) schestowitz: waltz.griffinbrown.co.uk

    I still can’t believe the above is really in charge of an ISO group. Someone must have baggy pants him. unless ISO has really gone down the tube lately.

  9. G. Michaels said,

    November 7, 2008 at 2:52 am

    Gravatar

    @Alex: I can’t really help you with Roy, but you can safely dismiss this ‘twitter’ person, he’s a well-known Slashdot troll and nymshifter that operates dozens of accounts over there, and uses them to disrupt discussions and general crapflooding:

    http://slashdot.org/~SockDisclosure/journal/214377

    ‘twitter’ basically appears to function now as BoycottNovell’s little attack poodle, resorting to kindergarten insults and ad hominems where Roy would rather pretend he’s being civil with people who disagree with him. They use his IRC channel to coordinate all this. Read his posts on this blog to get an idea of the quality he’s brought over from Slashdot. He’s just an unemployed armchair “evangelist” whose main achievements include getting laughed out of the Baton Rouge LUG (and Slashdot of course):

    http://www.brlug.net/pipermail/newbies_brlug.net/2007-April/001636.html

    Note: writer of this comment adds absolutely nothing but stalking and personal attacks against readers, as documented here.

  10. twitter said,

    November 7, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Gravatar

    Interesting, G. I mocked Alex Brown for calling Roy an idiot and a liar, and you took it as something aimed at yourself. Are you name shifting as you accuse me of the same?

    As Roy has noticed, that’s all you do here, so I’m force to conclude that you are simply part of M$’s regular program of abuse. Yes, that means you are paid by M$ to harass and smear people because M$’s products can’t speak for themselves.

    I’ve explained my reasons for using more than one account on Slashdot before. For those who have not seen it, visit this 2004 journal entry, this one from 2005, the troll zoo. Roy does not approve, I can live with that.

    If the person above really is Alex Brown, it’s safe to dismiss ISO. It’s long been safe to dismiss M$ for any purpose. Roy has done a good job documenting the sad destruction of ISO.

  11. André said,

    November 19, 2008 at 3:05 am

    Gravatar

    Alex is right that your communication style is over the top and you are a quick shooter to make direct personal allegations. He seems to be quite wrong on any other issues:

    #3 Groklaw implies this proves MS controls SC 34. Wrong for two reasons: first this was not a meeting of SC 34. Second MS (and Ecma) have no votes or decision making powers in any meeting under JTC 1. (And no voting took place in any case, since this was an advisory group).

    Our experience shows that it doesn’t matter in which name these persons operate. In no way does formal representation of other bodies restrain participants to directly follow the commercial interests of a particular vendor.

    The assumption that they have “no votes or decision powers in any meeting under JTC1″ is an odd presentation of facts. In particular as the past behaviour has shown that these members do not have any independence in their decision making and expertise. Sure it is not Japan that votes for its wale hunting, it is the national representative of the Bongo Bongo Islands that puts forward a proposal written by… and … says we endorse the Bongo Bongo proposal.

    #4 Groklaw implies MS/Ecma had some kind of untoward interest in this meeting. Errr, the purpose of this meeting was to decide on the maintenance arrangements for OOXML, so Ecma most certainly should have been interested — SC 34 had *invited* them to participate.

    As ECMA is de-facto a commercial proxy with no organisational independence it doesn’t matter. It just means that yet another person of the same vendor participates in the meeting under the ECMA label. This is why many persons advocate to revoke the a-liaision status of ECMA.

What Else is New


  1. Berkheimer or No Berkheimer, Software Patents Remain Mostly Unenforceable in the United States and the Supreme Court is Fine With That

    35 U.S.C. § 101, which is based on cases like Alice and Mayo, offers the 'perfect storm' against software patents; it doesn't look like any of that will change any time soon (if ever)



  2. Ignoring and Bashing Courts: Is This the Future of Patent Offices in the West?

    Andrei Iancu, who is trying to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101 while Trump ‘waters down’ SCOTUS (which delivered Alice), isn’t alone; António Campinos, the new President of the EPO, is constantly promoting software patents (which European courts reject, citing the EPC) and even Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ is dissenting against Australian courts that stubbornly reject software patents



  3. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Figure Out How to Stop PTAB or Prevent US Patent Quality From Ever Improving

    Improvements are being made to US patents because of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which amends/culls/pro-actively rejects (at application phases) bad patents; but the likes of Andrei Iancu cannot stand that because they're patent maximalists, who personally gain from an over-saturation of patents



  4. Links 15/11/2018: Zentyal 6.0, Deepin 15.8, Thunderbird Project Hiring

    Links for the day



  5. A Question of Debt: António Campinos, Lexology, Law Gazette, and Sam Gyimah

    Ineptitude in the media which dominates if not monopolises UPC coverage means that laws detrimental to everyone but patent lawyers are nowadays being pushed even by ministers (not just those whose clandestine vote is used/bought to steal democracy overnight)



  6. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  7. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  8. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  9. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  10. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  11. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  12. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  13. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  14. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  15. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  16. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  17. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  18. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  19. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  20. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  21. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  22. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  23. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  24. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  25. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  26. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  27. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  28. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  29. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?



  30. Links 10/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC2, ‘Linux on DeX’ Beta and Windows Breaking Itself Again

    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