Summary: Just like a filmography-style mafia, Microsoft and its allies proceed from corrupting ISO to bashing ODF from the inside and trying to control it too

MICROSOFT MAY hope that people will forget what it did for OOXML, but the past returns to haunt as more abusive behaviour gets seen. In light of the i4i case for instance [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], Jomar Silva raises the point that Microsoft lied about patents in OOXML, with the assistance of its special friend Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21].

Here is what Silva wrote a few days ago:

They also defined the coordinator of the BRM, Alex Brown (who also played a crucial role in the outcome of OpenXML, but that’s subject for another post, because I didn’t revealed yet all I saw in Geneva), and he publishes on his blog a FAQ with the rules of the BRM. This FAQ also circulated as an official ISO document, and can be found here.

Look what is written in this document:

4.1 Will IPR issues be discussed at the BRM?

No. IPR issues in this process are the exclusive preserve of the ITTF. IPR decisions have previously been delegated by all the ISO and IEC members (NBs) to the CEOs of IEC and ISO, and they in turn have examined them and found no outstanding problems. NBs seeking reassurance in such matters must pursue them through other avenues than the BRM.

In other words, the CEOs of ISO and IEC (the highest authorities of the two entities) had assessed the intellectual property issues on OpenXML and found nothing, so no committee around the world have to worry about the issue… I remember that I’ve asked about it few times, and the answer was always the same: “Kid, you are doubting the CEOs of ISO and IEC ?”… but what about the i4i litigation ?

[...]

Most of the ECMA delegates I know are Microsoft employees or business partners of the company. This staff can be anything but “uninformed” and therefore I can’t believe that ECMA didn’t know the litigation too.

So, I change the question asked by Groklaw almost two months ago for a more direct one: Who fooled who?

We all know that all NBs was fooled, that the countries have seen their names used in an unscrupulous way and that all delegates and competent technicians has been fooled too.

I really hope to hear something from the cited parties cited, and I believe that all International Society expect the same. We no longer live in a world where a nonsense fact like this can be accepted, and I’ll not stop until I find an answer (and I know I’m not alone in this quest).

I also would like to know from the ISO/IEC what they have to say about all this. They knew the i4i litigation ?

To finalize, I appeal again to CEOs of ISO and IEC: The G-20 is a reality, and it’s never too late to correct an injustice !

In the comments, the president of the FFII writes:

ISO should pull down the ISO29500 immediately.

No one can implement this specification safely.

ISO29500 should be withdrawn “Now”.

Georg C. F. Greve, the founder of the FSFE, writes about the above: "The first rule of the #OOXML club? Don't talk about the legal problems!"

Rob Weir has more to say about the role of Alex Brown:

Curiously, NBs were asked to make their final decision without actually seeing the text of the standard they were being asked to approve. ISO leadership denied requests from several NBs, a formal SC34 resolution requesting this text, as well as NB appeals, all which asked to have access to the "final DIS" text that would eventually be published. The ISO chief, in his response to the NB appeals, called the final text of OOXML "irrelevant" (prophetic words, indeed!) and would only permit NBs to have access to a list of over 1,000 resolutions from the BRM, many of which gave great editing discretion to the Microsoft consultant who would eventually produce the final text of the specification.

I discussed why the lack of a final DIS text was a problem back in May 2008:

We are currently approaching a two month period where NB's can lodge an appeal against OOXML. Ordinarily, one of the grounds for appeal would be if the Project Editor did not faithfully carry out the editing instructions approved at the BRM. For example, if he failed to make approved changes, made changes that were not authorized, or introduced new errors when applying the approved changes. But with no final DIS text, the NB's are unable to make any appeals on those grounds. By delaying the release of the final DIS text, JTC1 is preventing NB's from exercising their rights.

Would you make thousands of changes to code and then not allow anyone to test it, and then release it internationally? Of course not. Doing so would amount to professional malpractice. But that is essentially what ISO did with OOXML.

Weir is very careful not to mention names (personalising issues), but it's obvious who's who, not to mention the current role these people play in derailing ODF. We shall come to this in a moment. To say that ISO was "gamed" is an understatement. ISO was hijacked and a lot of people corrupted and bribed. There is extensive evidence to show this.

On a more positive note, Bob Sutor (IBM) writes about new success stories for ODF, followed by feedback from Roberto Galoppini and also his colleague Rob Weir.

Roberto Galoppini also writes about the ODF plugfest and spreads the word now that the event is approaching.

The second in a series of events that will bring together implementors of OASIS OpenDocument Format/ISO 26300 to unilaterally test and discuss implementation issues of ODF with each other. All ODF implementors and/or those looking into the matter are invited to participate in this event on behalf of the Netherlands government and OpenDoc Society.

We wrote about those plugfests before, e.g. in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9 10, 11, 12]. Microsoft (and its ecosystem) attended plugfests to throw some criticism at this standard, which it hates but at the same time must watch over. Alex Brown's friend, who has always been hostile towards ODF, drops Microsoft's talking points to be used against ODF while Microsoft's Doug Mahugh makes fun of ODF as well. Those who are not employees of Microsoft often feed the company by insulting ODF "by proxy", so to speak.

“Those who are not employees of Microsoft often feed the company by insulting ODF "by proxy", so to speak.”In the latest example seen above, we are witnessing a familiar old pattern of deception. As our reader puts it, "Microsoft is able to spin it as Microsoft vs 1 company (either IBM or Sun depending on the circumstances) with amnesia about the rest. Via OASIS, 600 companies, universities and government agencies were behind the initial development of the first try at a universal office format. About two dozen were taking the lead in development." This politicisation of the issue (courtesy of Microsoft) has gone on for years.

Anyway, those who are speaking about the ODF plugfest now include Glyn Moody, Gwynne Monahan, Jomar Silva, Thomas Zander (Nokia), Rob Weir, and the "elephant in the room" Doug Mahugh. The Microsoft crowd is still trying to 'tame' or dethrone Rob Weir, so Jomar Silva sarcastically writes: "Oh my God ! Mr. Vadar is the chair of the ODF TC ! We must be the bad guys ! (M$ fan boys are impressive)"

Microsoft is still striving to control ODF like it controls ISO and Weir must be polite. That's probably why he also omits names and does not write about the OOXML scandals as much as he used to.

Microsoft's hijack attempts affect not only the ODF TC. Watch who is involved in the Document Interoperability Initiative: Microsoft, Microsoft allies, and Microsoft-funded groups.

* I'll be covering the Office 2010 extensions (as was covered by the Office program managers in last month's DII workshop in Redmond). I will also present the latest news on how we’re working to improve ODF interoperability between Office and other popular applications, and talk about our plans for the future. * Alex Brown will be covering present and future plans for the Office-o-tron validator project. * Klaus-Peter Eckert of Fraunhofer FOKUS will present the latest status of the document test library project and other work Fraunhofer is doing to improve interoperability.

Microsoft attempts to control the whole thing, including so-called interoperability. We showed a lot of evidence before [1, 2, 3].

Even in Wikipedia, ODF-hostile content gets injected into the article about ODF by the Microsoft folks, as last shown some days ago. Some references to Microsoft blogs are now being removed, as well as the poison that they have injected.

A more detailed account of how Microsoft subverts Wikipedia (on ODF) can be found in, e.g.:

• Is Microsoft's AstroTurf Against ODF Still On?
• Microsoft Starts Attacking the ODF Alliance, Sends Paid Wikipedia Editors to ODF Article (Updated)
• OOXML BRM Convenor (Alex Brown) Joins the Pro-Microsoft Wikipedia Spinners
• Microsoft Folks Rewrite ODF's History and Build Anti-ODF Social Network
• Fraunhofer Again Lobbies for Microsoft Lock-in
• Microsoft Accused of Anti-ODF Whisper Campaign

Microsoft leads people to confusion, fear, and absorption of disinformation using those people who only pretend to be friends of ODF. Here for instance is a person who was unfortunately led to making a false claim given new software like Androffice. ODF does a lot better than Microsoft would have people believe. ⬆