Summary: Leaked documents from the UK reveal the role Microsoft played in derailing standards in the United Kingdom

THE thugs from Microsoft are waging imperialist wars again. They do this via mercenaries of sorts — front groups that pretend to be “local”.

“So MS got the UK Cabinet office to use a broken definition of Open Standard,” says iophk. “Strange that the office was so malleable.”

Herein we see standards getting replaced by Microsoft “interop” nonsense, just like Novell-type deals with their new propaganda. The sheer abuses (including bribery) Microsoft used for OOXML were covered here closely. Rather than recall them now we’ll just say with conviction that Microsoft is a criminal company, as evidenced around 2007 and 2008 when Microsoft attacked international standards bodies, many professionals (those whom Microsoft did not manage to bribe), etc.

“MS has been pushing RAND for more than a few years now,” iophk explains. As we showed in prior years, Microsoft is using the BSA and other front groups to achieve this.

Here too we have a new report which shows what Microsoft has just done (based on a leak):

The British government withdrew its open standards policy after lobbying from Microsoft, it has been revealed in a Cabinet Office brief leaked to Computer Weekly.

The Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) also formerly opposed the policy before Cabinet Office withdrew it. BIS supported Microsoft’s position against open standards, the backbone of the government’s ICT policy. The Business Software Alliance, infamous for its lobbying against open standards policy in Brussels, also lobbied against the government policy.

Microsoft took up direct opposition to the ICT Strategy’s pledge to give preference to technologies that supported open standards of interoperability between government computer systems, said the briefing paper.

The software supplier was concerned this would prevent companies from claiming royalties on the point of exchange between those systems.

It complained specifically about the wording of UK procurement policy, which in January 2011 established a definition to explain its edict that open standards should be used in government computing wherever possible. UK policy specified that “[open standards] must have intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis”.

Microsoft said it supported the aims of UK open standards policy – specifically that government systems should be interoperable, that it should be possible for government to re-use purchased software components, and that government should not be “locked-in” to using particular technologies.

[...]

Microsoft refused to talk to Computer Weekly about its consultation with the Cabinet Office.

It said in a written statement: “Microsoft fully supports the Government’s ICT strategy and its goals of reducing cost and complexity, and increasing information sharing, interoperability, openness and re-use.”

The BSA said in a written statement it also supported government’s policy aims.

“However,” it said, “reducing public procurement expenses in the UK does not require the adoption of a policy which undermines the value of Intellectual Property and Innovation.”

Cabinet Office said in a written statement: “No lobbying has taken place that has affected our approach in creating an Open Standards definition that works for government.”

BIS also refused to discuss its differences with Cabinet Office. It said in a written statement: “Discussions are still ongoing between the departments with many options being considered.”

Glyn Moody was filled with fury over this. He wrote:

Although I am not surprised by this revelation, I remain incredibly angry about it – and I think everyone who cares about computing in this country should be too. It confirms that the UK government’s fine words about supporting open source and open standard are truly the typical and cynical political sweet-talking before you are stabbed in the back at the behest of lobbyists that wield so much power. No one should take anything the UK government says in this context seriously again.

What’s truly shocking about this episode is not that Microsoft has once again interfered with a sovereign nation’s decision to create a level playing-field – that’s just par for the course for the convicted monopolist. What’s really disgusting is that UK government has let them. This is a total scandal: anyone involved with this pathetic kowtowing to US business interests with any sense of decency would resign immediately. And those that don’t should be fired.

Free Software Magazine wrote, “look who’s behind it?”

It is at times like this I recall the Free Software Foundation’s opposition to the use of the term Open Source. Just as with “Open Standard” it is way to open to interpretation.

So once again the UK Government falls behind the pack in terms of freedom, transparency and accessibility for its citizens. This is not a party-political thing by the way – it’s a politician thing. In the UK there has been a backlash lately over the influence that the media (in particular the print media “barons”) has over government policy. Isn’t it about time the same spotlight was cast upon the influence that big business (many of them not British) have over government policy as well?

I find it saddening, disheartening and somewhat ironic that the one part of the software industry that is continuing to provide real innovation and progress is being locked out of Whitehall because of lobbying by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills!

Microsoft’s role in these situation is easy to see, even when Microsoft hides behind front groups. Over in a smaller country we find news about another FOSS-hostile government position:

A state which has been popular for using FOSS has now entered in a conditional pact where they ‘willingly’ chose to spend money on proprietary software despite the availability of free and open source alternatives.

Bribes come from proprietary software and overpriced goods. It should not be surprising that politicians turn their back on Free/Open Source software. █

Summary: New examples of the Commission serving as guardian of corporations, not the public

EARLIER this year we demonstrated that the European Commission had lost its way [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Linking to this whitepaper, the FFII’s president writes that “The Commission has apparently sacrificed its function as the guardian of the principles, values and policies of the EU…”

André Rebentisch from the FFII shows that the “EU Commission explains how they slapped their citizens in the face”. It’s said in relation to OOXML:

Document Exchange – EU Commission explains how they slapped their citizens in the face

[...]

It seems to me the Commission had good reasons to keep this offensive document confidential for so long. Many persons I know are simply outraged when they think back at the OOXML standardization process.

As the FFII’s folks point out in the NO-OOXML Web site: “The preferred document exchange among European Institutions is OOXML”, this is the summary of an awful document produced by the “Inter-Institutional Committee for Informatics” of the European Institutions. Basically the document says that European bureaucrats use Microsoft Office everywhere on their desktop, and this is not gonna change.”

It’s the same in the UK pretty much. “The Great Betrayal of 2012″ calls it Glyn Moody, with others noticing that the BSA, a Microsoft front group, “tears UK policy to shreds”:

Cabinet Office scrapped its open standards policy before opening it to consultation last month, opening the way for a major policy U-turn.

It issued a procurement policy edict on 30 November that erased a standards policy that had been in place since 31 January. It was revoked after a period of lobbying by powerful companies lined against its open standards policy that included Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance.

Who is left then to stand up for the public? “Polititcians are gonna change the EU treaties once again without referendums. It is really time for a change in politics,” wrote the FFII’s president. But it gets worse. It’s not just about OOXML. This extends to patent policy to a degree. Pierre Delsaux of the Commission takes a troubling stance which jumps in line with patent lawyers. “Italy, which now has a new government led by Mario Monti, is considering joining the system, said Delsaux” (according to this report).

Regarding this article, the “tensions between EU Member States,” claims Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, “unitary patent could be dead before being born” and also:

Spain is not changing its opinion on #upat afaik

The FFII asks: “Would #Almunia prolong EUnuch rules for #patent trolls?” This one official page gives a grim outlook.

Mind the article “It’s now or never for EU patent reform – Commission” because it says that:

It’s now or never for EU patent reform – Commission

If EU member states ever want to get a deal on the patent reform package they need to put their negotiating cards on the table, a senior Commission official said today

Does the Commission think it is really helping by supporting it. Some members of it tried rushing everything and amid delays the patent lawyers became more passionate about batting for this mess and one lawyers’ site said: “As discussions over patent and trade reforms in Europe reach a critical stage, the departure of key staff could cause more delays”

There is no reason to rush into this thing and there is no reason to ever pass it until the patent systems in other continents become more sane, Over in the US media companies like CBS are being sued by patent trolls, which gives hope for reform there (the media controls public perception). To quote Masnick:

Of course, while media companies aren’t quite as used to dealing with patent lawsuits, and also don’t have patent portfolios of their own should they be sued by practicing entities, the one thing they do have is the ability to sway public opinion. It will be interesting to see, as this keeps up, if it backfires on the trolling firms by simply calling more and more attention to some of their practices.

The unitary patent can extend the reach of patent trolls and cause enormous damage to the European economy, The Commission should strongly oppose it, especially Commissioner Barnier, whose role we will write about separately. We we mentioned him not so long ago, as well as here, here, here, here and here. █

Summary: Europe’s transition to Free/Open Source software is stifled by the existence of Microsoft’s fake ‘open’ format

THE SUBJECT of OOXML/ODF was covered here thoroughly in 2007 and 2008. We showed a great deal of lies, corruption, and cover-up.

Putting aside the corruption behind OOXML, the anticompetitive aspect of it returns to haunt Europe. Ryan says that “they should get rid of it and use ODF” and notes that the “Open Source Business Alliance” has created a new working group – “Office Interoperability.”

“Business Alliance,” notes Ryan, is similar to the BSA and many times before we explained that interoperability is just a weasel word used to marginalise open standards. “I smell Ballmer,” Ryan says, but the report is not so amusing. To quote:

IT authorities from Germany and Switzerland have announced that they are working together, under the auspices of the Open Source Business Alliance, to improve the way that LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org display and process OOXML-formatted documents. The authorities involved include the IT groups from the cities of Munich, Jena and Freiburg im Breisgau, the Swiss canton of Waadt, the Swiss Federal Court and the Schweizer Informatikstrategie Bund (Swiss IT Federation) whose representatives met at a workshop in Zurich in October to launch the “Precise reproduction of OOXML documents in Open Source Office applications” project. Slides for the workshop provide more details of what was discussed.

This was the purpose of OOXML all along — throwing users back into the same loop and the same lock-in/trap. █

Summary: The largest population in America is characterised as having an anti-American government

Wikipedia describes the Monroe Doctrine as follows: “The Monroe Doctrine is a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention (however, the wording referred to the entire Western Hemisphere, which actually includes much of Europe and Africa). The doctrine was introduced by President Monroe when he was enraged at the actions being executed around him.[1] The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Americas were not to be further colonized by European countries but that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when many Latin American countries were on the verge of becoming independent from the Spanish Empire. The United States, reflecting concerns raised by Great Britain, ultimately hoped to avoid having any European power take over Spain’s colonies.”

In due time, the American nation came to be almost synonymous with the United States, whose citizens were also referred to as “Americans”. This popularised the perception that to be American is to inherit rules exclusively from the US. This has not been an exceptionally popular idea in South America and we still see colonialist corporations like Microsoft labelling some South American countries as "anti-American" when it suits them (e.g. when they reject OOXML as in this case). Yes, Microsoft has been trying to characterise ODF, which is backed almost exclusively by large US-based businesses, as a matter of “anti-Americanism”. We covered cables about that. Today we expand on this by showing the ethanol push inside Brazil. American billionaires drive some of that controversial idea (turning food into fuel) and we loved the end of the first cable, which quotes economic columnist Alberto Tamer as saying that “the future for agribusiness and Brazil is near. We must know how to act and not make mistakes again, as we have always done – especially under this government obstinate in its anti-American ideology.”

What’s with this phrase? Is this a code word for “against imperialist multinational”? Banana Republic anyone? These slurs that Microsoft uses to daemonise Microsoft sceptics/critics are reminiscent of the “Free software” as “communism” insult, which we found in some other Cablegate cables. In any case, here is what we have today:

VZCZCXYZ0016
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSO #0107 0431139
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 121139Z FEB 07
FM AMCONSUL SAO PAULO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6406
INFO RHEHNSC/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY 7496
RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO PRIORITY 7780
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 2704

UNCLAS SAO PAULO 000107 

SIPDIS 

SIPDIS 

STATE INR/R/MR; IIP/R/MR; WHA/PD 

DEPT PASS USTR 

USDOC 4322/MAC/OLAC/JAFEE 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KMDR [Media Reaction Reporting],
OPRC [Public Relations and Correspondence],
OIIP [International Information Programs],
ETRD [Foreign Trade], BR [Brazil]
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: WESTERN HEMISPHERE: VISITS OF NICHOLAS
BURNS AND GEORGE BUSH TO BRAZIL; SAO PAULO 

¶1. "There is No 'Free' Alliance" 

Liberal, largest national circulation daily Folha de S. Paulo's
International Editor Claudia Antunes commented (2/12): "The failed
occupation of Iraq led many international relations experts in the
US to conclude that the Americans, different from the British and
the French in the past, have no appetite for classic colonialism.
Immediately after the occupation, a thesis was disseminated
according to which a division of tasks would be necessary: the US
would provide the force and its allies, led by the Europeans, would
be responsible for the 'construction of states.' It is in this
scenario that Under Secretary Nicholas Burns' recent statement in
Sao Paulo, that Brazil must think about becoming a 'global security
provider,' is inserted. Someone must perform 'humanitarian' tasks so
that Washington can intervene in 'bankrupted states' - but such
manpower is lacking.... Burns' discreet suggestion subtly included
in Bush's 'positive agenda' for South America is a good reminder for
those who believe in the feasibility of a total alignment with the
US.... The US is unquestionably the world's largest economy and the
only military power. But the brief 'unipolar moment' that followed
the Cold War no longer exists.  The euphoria of global growth and
economic interdependence may disguise reality, but what one can see
is an accumulation of forces everywhere for a disturbed future.  It
is hard to imagine alliances that are not tactical." 

¶2. "Ethanol Brings the US Closer To Brazil" 

Center-right national circulation daily O Estado de S. Paulo
remarked (2/11): "Under Secretary Nicholas Burns' visit to Brazil
last week made clear that the US wants Brazil to become its
privileged interlocutor in South America.  In this context, the
Brazilian know-how in ethanol production is working as a bridge in
the rapprochement between the Bush and Lula administrations.  In
addition to its diplomatic importance, this alliance may represent
an encouragement to the marketing of ethanol as a fuel at the very
moment when the world is discussing alternatives to the use of oil.
President Bush will visit Brazil in March to settle this strategic
rapprochement with the Lula administration. He has already made
clear in several speeches his intention of reducing the US
dependence on oil." 

¶3. "Bush will Bring Investment" 

Economic columnist Alberto Tamer maintained in center-right national
circulation daily O Estado de S. Paulo (2/12): "Brazil has an
immense possibility of opening a new market in the US. It is a so
important an opportunity that Bush will visit Brazil mainly to
negotiate agreements to bring investments to the Brazilian ethanol
sector.... He wants to buy our ethanol as soon as possible. Not that
he loves Brazil, but because for the first time in recent history
the US needs our ethanol, our biomass, as much as we can produce.
This is another consequence of the Iraqi war and the boom of oil
prices.... Bush is not speaking alone.... Major investors such as
George Soros and Bill Gates have entered the ethanol business, first
in California and now in Brazil.... The Virgin Group has plans to
invest USD 400 million and build ethanol plants in the US. And this
is just the beginning.  The future for agribusiness and Brazil is
near. We must know how to act and not make mistakes again, as we
have always done - especially under this government obstinate in its
anti-American ideology."
McMullen

Here is another related cable from the following month:

VZCZCXRO3060
PP RUEHRG
DE RUEHBR #0788/01 1141900
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 241900Z APR 06
FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5190
INFO RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 1928
RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 6808
RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE 4648
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 3952
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 5447
RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION 5369
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 6189
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 2953
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ 4520
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 3209
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 3709
RUEHGE/AMEMBASSY GEORGETOWN 1043
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 1787
RUCPDO/USDOC WASHDC
RHEBAAA/USDOE WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRASILIA 000788 

SIPDIS 

SIPDIS 

DEPT FOR EWHITE OES/EGC AND PKELLY OES/STC; OES/ETC GTHOMPSON
USDOE FOR SLADISLAW
DEPT PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR MSULLIVAN
DEPT PLEASE PASS TO USAID FOR LAC/AA
USDOC FOR 4332/ITA/MAC/WH/OLAC/JANDERSEN/ADRSICOLL/MWAR D
USDOC FOR 3134/ITA/USFCS/OIO/WH/RD/DANDERSON/SHUPKA 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: TRGY [Energy Technology], SENV [Environmental Affairs],
ENRG [Energy and Power], KSCA [Science Counselors and Attachés],
ETRD [Foreign Trade], EAGR [Agriculture and Forestry], BR [Brazil]
SUBJECT: THE ETHANOL DILEMMA - INADEDQUATE SUPPLY VS GROWING DEMAND 

¶1.  Summary: As countries worldwide search for alternatives to
increasingly expensive petroleum, not to mention green fuel
alternatives that help meet Kyoto Protocol targets, Brazil finds
itself in an enviable position.  The world's largest producer of
both ethanol and sugar is the purveyor of technology, infrastructure
and processes that could help fuel a biofuel revolution.  In fact,
Brazil's ethanol program is so successful it has drawn the likes of
Bill Gates and Google's founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, into
the fray, promoting expanded ethanol production in the United
States.   Yet, despite the monumental success of ethanol in Brazil,
it is not happening without some growing pains. 

¶2.  Brazil now finds itself in the unforeseen position of not having
enough supply to satisfy demand. The unanticipated flex-fuel boom in
Brazil coupled with increasing international demand for ethanol is
exerting serious pressure on Brazil's domestic production apparatus.
 Sales of flex-fuel cars reached approximately 80% of new vehicle
sales in 2005.  The resulting increase in demand for ethanol
necessarily led to price increases.  Moreover, ethanol exports
increased by 1.8 billion liters in 2005 (a 269% jump over 2004).
This facet of increased demand is compounded by the fact that
foreign importers are offering a price 8-10% higher than Brazil's
internal market.  During the current interharvest period supplies
are limited and prices have skyrocketed, leaving Brazilian consumers
and officials with little hope for price reductions until production
renews at the end of April.  Taken as an omen, one of the most
pressing questions facing Brazil is how to create an infrastructure
which can deal with the escalated demand for ethanol.
End Summary 

¶3. The question of how Brazil intends to address this supply and
demand issue is still up for debate.  In conversations with Scioff,
Angelo Bressan, Director of the Ministry of Agricultures
sugar/alcohol division, noted that the GoB has only two ways to
regulate ethanol.  The first involves adjusting the requisite amount
of ethanol to be mixed in gasoline.  The GoB recently utilized this
approach dropping the percentage from 25 to 20%. (reftel)  Although
this measure increased supply, it had little to no effect on prices.
 A second option would be to regulate ethanol exports by, for
example, linking exports to domestic stocks via a system of quotas,
but leaving prices free.  This argument has been negatively received
both by industry and free market advocates within the GoB.  Unica
(the Sao Paulo Sugarcane Industry Association) believes that this
mechanism would not be able to function without government
interference in pricing.  Bressan noted that the GoB and industry
have had an open dialogue focusing on how to address the problem of
supply but without any decisive outcomes as of yet. 

¶4. The sugar/alcohol industry, for its part, is looking to expand
both the area of planted cane and the industry's capacity to refine
it.  Preliminary estimates are that US$ 14 billion is going to be
invested into refineries that can crush and produce sugar/alcohol by
2011.  Meanwhile, another US$ 7 billion is being invested into
expanding cultivated land.  Bressan added that 11 new refineries are
already under construction with an additional 16 planned for 2007.
That said, the analgesic effects of these investments are still some
years away.  Because it is not cost-effective to transport cane long
distances, refineries and agricultural lands must remain in close
proximity.  Once a distillery is completed, there will still be a
12-15 month lag time (the crop cycle for cane) before production
commences.  Moreover, the upward swoop of land prices in cane
producing regions (49% over the last year, compared to the national
average of 2%), is certain to become an obstacle to the expanding
industry. 

¶5.  This, of course, does not address the GoB's principal concern of
how to maintain competitive prices for ethanol during the
interharvest period.  Bressan has stated that the GoB and industry
are discussing palliative measures but failed to expand on what they 

BRASILIA 00000788  002 OF 002 

were.  They are simply "discussing the issue."  The most prominent
idea, reflected in numerous media accounts, is to create stockpiles
of sufficient size to guarantee supply.  While the industry and
government agree to the idea in concept, both sides dispute who
should be responsible for creating mechanisms and supplying the
necessary funding for the stocks.  While Roberto Rodrigues, Brazil's
Minister of Agriculture, initially said that the government was
studying inexpensive financing mechanisms for creating stocks, he
later retracted those comments affirming that stocks are the
responsibility of the productive chain. 

¶6. In terms of Brazil and the United States, and the growing
attention exhibited by parties like Gates, Brin and Page, and rising
interest in California, Bressan noted that the Ministry would like
to see U.S. tariff barriers dropped on combustible ethanol.  But, he
stated, it needed to be done in a systematic fashion.  He fears that
when the U.S. market opens, Brazilian consumers will be adversely
affected by a dearth in supply resulting from profit hungry
exporters.  Bressan further maintained that the GoB has an interest
in creating a world market and that the U.S. and Brazil should work
together to achieve that goal.  He added too, that countries,
including the U.S., have a vested interest in working with Brazil
because of the "know-how" they have regarding the production and
processing of ethanol. 

¶7.  A crucial link in this process, from his perspective, will be
spreading the supply chain throughout the developing world,
especially in Africa and Asia.  The U.S. and Brazil, he stated
emphatically, are not capable of sustaining a world ethanol market
on their own.  That, of course, has not stopped the likes of
Petrobras from signing a contract in February to build a pipeline
from Goias (one of Brazil's principal cane producing regions) down
to Brazil's largest port in Santos.  A portent of how industry views
the future role of ethanol. 

¶8. Comment: In the short-term, it is clear that alcohol induced
euphoria will continue the industry's ascension.  As the world's
largest producer of sugar and alcohol, Brazil is taking measures to
increase production and at least discussing how to satisfy supply in
the boom time.  In response to the crisis over the last four months
and the elevated prices, the GoB has recognized its impotence and is
"throwing in the towel", waiting for the new harvest.  This is
currently underway, and greater supplies of ethanol are expected in
filling stations by early May. End Comment 

LINEHAN

Discussion about ethanol itself is better off left to experts in the field. Notice that Bill Gates is named in both aforementioned cables. █

Summary: Encouraging new signs in Australia (an OpenOffice.org pilot) amid a major blunder for Microsoft, whose dirty OOXML secrets are leaking out years after the acts

THE Cablegate stash has made available key evidence which we have covered a lot since the beginning of this month. The OOXML-related exhibits (cables) have gotten quite far by now, with articles that were written not just in English. The importance is this is that it brings back to international awareness the fact that OOXML relied on corruption at all levels. We most collected evidence to show this in 2007 and in 2008. Cablegate is like a wormhole that takes us back in time and lets us see back room string-pulling this will hopefully affect this AGIMO review of document standards in Australia. “Last month,” claims this new report, “Department of Defence chief technology officer Matt Yannopoulos revealed that 100 corporate staff had been using OpenOffice in a year-old, “semi-formal” trial.”

This is good news. They will hopefully realise that their initial leaning towards OOXML was a mistake also due to public awareness that OOXML correlates with crime, as once shown using a bar chart, just after a vote on OOXML (corrupt countries were more likely to vote “Yes”).

Cablegate posts will resume shortly. It’s just a matter of dedicating free time to the task. There is enough in there to last for a long time and have considerable impact. █

Summary: The impact of leaked diplomatic cables on current affairs and perceptions people have about companies, government, and elected officials

OVER the past day or two we have been receiving a record number of links to this site, mostly pointing to Cablegate posts. People from all over the world share with their friends what they previously suspected but could not prove.

One person from Brazil is pulling skeletons out of Microsoft’s closet and embarrassing the cowardly, supine government at the same time. Following some blog posts about American diplomats lobbying for OOXML (including our own post), we are notified about this very detailed post which provides further background to the leak from someone who was nearby:

Let me make clear here that I don’t believe that this meeting between Microsoft and the major representative from the American Government in Brazil has been a personal initiative of Mr. Michel Levy, but for me it was an corporative initiative. Even being a Microsoft employee, Mr. Michel Levy is a Brazilian, and I prefer not to believe that he has, on its own initiative, decided to start an initiative to put the American Government against the Brazilian Government, thus violating our sovereignty and our national technical merit.

The first question that I leave here is on how many other countries that voted NO to OpenXML the same kind of initiative also happened, and how much of these countries “have accepted” an eventual intervention by the U.S. government.

Yes, the intervention may have occurred, because if you notice the general line of argumentation used here in Brazil, the national technical decision is presented as being an initiative against the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and one of the things that cause retaliation in free trade agreements with the United States are eventual IPR violations. I have my own collection of rumors from the times of OpenXML, where possible sanctions motivated by IPR violations were brought to the negotiation table to get the governmental votes in some countries (if your country has changed the vote after the voting in September 2007, please investigate and you will probably find a ‘key’ governmental role on that vote changing). Maybe one day, WikiLeaks could help us to investigate that too!

[...]

Finally, they try to insinuate that the ODF is an anti-American standard. I confess that I would like to know what IBM, Oracle, Google and Red Hat (and other North American companies) think about the that, since they work hard on the past years on its development and worldwide adoption. Actually I prefer that these companies explain directly to the American Government if the ODF is anti-American, and I still hope they ask clarification from the American Government about Microsoft’s similar initiatives in other countries during the 2007 and 2008 years.

For those who did not follow the whole story, the ODF was adopted in Brazil, OpenXML rejected here and just didn’t had a major role on the international scene, because we were silenced on the last day of the BRM, just when we would submit a proposal that could change the end of this history. I’ve already told this story here.

Special thanks to WikiLeaks, for helping us get the skeletons out of the closet. For those who want to understand how Microsoft deals and negotiates with governments that have pro-FLSOO policies, it’s worth reading this other cable here.

Well, now there is proof too.

Several days ago we found out what American government officials were saying about Neelie Kroes. We published this yesterday and Jan Wildeboer notes that there is plenty more where that came from. Sooner or later we shall get around to it. This promises to change the way Microsoft and its lobbying practices are widely perceived. █

Summary: Microsoft’s Michel Levy uses propaganda to daemonise a pro-ODF policy, insult the president’s pro-freedom policies, and pressure politicians to permit proprietary lock-in

IN THE YEARS 2007-2008 we spent a lot of time covering OOXML corruption. Microsoft had done in a few months the amount of misconduct most companies do not do throughout their entire existence. James Love has found this newly-release cable which shows lobbying for Microsoft in Brazil, at taxpayers’ expense and against the interests of taxpayers. Quoting Mr. Love:

Levy claimed to be in possession of unsigned letters from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which is referred to as “Itamaraty” in the cable), to foreign governments, asking that they collaborate to support the open source ODF as the international standard. Of course, if this was true, it would not be surprising, since at the time, there was broad support among non-US governments, non-Microsoft software companies, consumer groups and free software advocates to push for ODF as an open standard for file formats.

The cable says that Microsoft was seeking confidential advice, rather than advocacy, from the Ambassador. Such advice was forthcoming: “Ambassador Sobel did offer advice on various SIPDIS approaches Microsoft could take in generating support for standards that would have room for both ODF and XML software.”

The subject of the original cable is “MICROSOFT SEES GOB ATTACKS AGAINST IPR” (GOB is Government of Brazil and IPR is a propaganda term for copyrights and patents). Here is the original Cablegate cable:

ZCZCXYZ0026
 OO RUEHWEB
DE RUEHSO #1001 3551359
 ZNY CCCCC ZZH (CCY ADDED CAPTION AD04181F2 MSI3697 508,
 O 211359Z DEC 07
 FM AMCONSUL SAO PAULO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7773
 INFO RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 8916
 RUEAWJF/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC IMMEDIATE
 RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC IMMEDIATE
 RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
C O N F I D E N T I A L SAO PAULO 001001
 SIPDIS
 SIPDIS
 (C O R R E C T E D C O P Y: ADDED SIPDIS CAPTION)
 E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/20/2017
 TAGS: ECON[Economic Conditions], ETRD[Foreign Trade], ECIN?[Economic Integration and
Cooperation], PREL[External Political Relations]
SUBJECT: MICROSOFT SEES GOB ATTACKS AGAINST IPR
Classified By: Econ/Pol Chief James Story for reasons 1.5 b and d. 

¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a December 20 meeting in Sao Paulo with Ambassador Sobel, Microsoft
Brazil President Michel Levy stated that current GOB policies are antagonistic towards Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR). According to Levy, the GOB through the Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) has
mounted an international campaign to discredit Microsoft's proprietary XML format and is pushing
for countries to adopt the ODF (Open Document Format) at the expense of XML at the March
meeting of the International Standards Organization in Geneva. Levy sees both ideological issues
as well as commercial interests at work in the GOB position. END SUMMARY. 

¶2. (C) Microsoft Brazil President Michel Levy requested a meeting with Ambassador Sobel
on December 20 to discuss ways forward on working with what he characterized as an
antagonistic GOB. According to Levy, Itamaraty has pressured the purportedly independent
Brazilian Technical Standards Agency, ABNT to adopt a more aggressive posture against
using XML as one of two possible standards, along with ODF, in Brazil. In addition, Levy
stated that he is in the possession of unsigned letters from Itamaraty to various foreign
governments requesting that the governments work together to support only the open source
ODF as the international standard. 

¶3. (C) Levy believes that this issue has turned ideological and is a manifestation of
anti-Americanism within Itamaraty. He cited President Lula's Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff as
well as high-ranking advisor Celso Alvarez as being the chief architects of an anti-IPR, anti-royalties
strategy within the GOB. According to Levy, these advisors have convinced President Lula that
there is no difference between ODF and proprietary XML software. His main concern is that the
GOB will use the ABNT to adopt an ODF only standard by decree rather than going through
Congress where Microsoft would at least have an opportunity to explain the differences between
the software systems. Levy used as an example that all of Embraer's designs are created through
XML and that the current ODF software simply can't do the same job. If ODF is the only
standard, Levy argued, there could be economic ramifications for Brazil. 

¶4. (C) Levy then pointed out that commercially Microsoft faces an uneven playing field in Brazil.
He stated that in addition to several bills in the Brazilian Congress that would deny the
GOB the ability to buy proprietary software, there are reports that many recent bids that
went to tender had specific, if unwritten, instructions that disallowed any Microsoft bids. He
further stated that the issue of cross-retaliation on IPR from the cotton subsidies case is alive
and well and could potentially come to pass in 2008. 

¶5. (C) While Levy made it clear that Microsoft is not asking for any USG advocacy at this point,
and in fact requested that our communication be kept strictly confidential, Ambassador Sobel did
offer advice on various SIPDIS approaches Microsoft could take in generating support for
standards that would have room for both ODF and XML software. Specifically, the Ambassador
thought Mircosoft should work through various trade groups to begin a discussion with the GOB
on this issue. The Ambassador also indicated that Microsoft should get Brazilian companies to put
this issue high on the agenda of the CEO Forum meetings to take place with Department of
Commerce Secretary Gutierrez early next year. 

¶6. (C) COMMENT: The debate among various international standards (GPS, telecommunications,
etc.) is not new in Brazil, and Levy's concerns about an anti-American ideology in the Brazilian
Foreign Ministry are not only Microsoft's concern. Microsoft's concerns that the GOB is seeking
to adopt one standard that does not allow for proprietary softwear, bears watching. A multi-industry
push for a strategy that allows for Congressional debate over the relative merits of the software systems
will certainly yield better results than Microsoft fighting this issue alone. END COMMENT.
 WHITE

Microsoft is trying to portray distrust of Microsoft as hatred of the US, which is a trick it pulls a lot. The above says that “Levy believes that this issue has turned ideological and is a manifestation of anti-Americanism within Itamaraty.” If there is any “anti-Americanism”, it is because of the likes of Levy who seek to disrupt policies overseas and turn entire massive populations into clients of some American monopolist that rose to power through criminal activities. Notice the daemonisation of Lula as well, using the “anti-IPR, anti-royalties” terms that mean nothing but protectionism and artificial monopoly enablers. Also mind this part: “The Ambassador also indicated that Microsoft should get Brazilian companies to put this issue high on the agenda of the CEO Forum meetings to take place with Department of Commerce Secretary Gutierrez early next year.” Also see: “Microsoft’s concerns that the GOB is seeking to adopt one standard that does not allow for proprietary softwear [sic], bears watching.” How so? It is when the government accepts lock-in and code that cannot be audited that one should be concerned. It’s the public which pays for it after all. █

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: “El ministro Simon Power confirma que el proyecto de ley de patente NZ se aprobó sin ninguna modificación. Los programas de ordenador son excluidos”, anuncia un principal lider del Free/Open Source Software en la isla.

Nuestra página dedicada sobre Nueva Zelanda (wiki para kiwi[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand]) se acumula la mayor parte lo que escribió acerca de la lucha de Nueva Zelanda contra los extranjeros y sus ayudantes en el interior del país – los que querían los monopolios en las recetas de software. Hay buenas noticias esta semana.

“El ministro Simon Power confirma el Proyecto de Ley de Patentes NZ se aprobó sin ninguna modificación. Programas de ordenador excluidos “, escribe Don Christie[http://twitter.com/normnz/status/80058819614474240], citando esta página[http://www.burgess.co.nz/law/patents-bill-2010-update]. También escribe que[http://twitter.com/normnz/status/80386202213158912]:

“Método y aparato para llevar a cabo una campaña de marketing en nombre de una publicidad” – patentes de métodos comerciales en Nueva Zelanda – la aplicación de Patentes # 591806

Tal vez puede invalidar esto sólo mientras Microsoft retiraba su OOXML patente[http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/xml-patent-saga-ends-with-microsoft-withdrawing-application] hace unos días. No fue invalidado pero se retiró de acuerdo con un comunicado de prensa[http://techrights.org/2011/06/16/nzoss-milestone/]. Sólo falta que los lagunas “integradas” (haciendo pasar software como hardware) deben ser eliminados o tratados explícitamente en las directrices de patentes. █

Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary:”Minister Simon Power confirms the NZ Patent Bill will be passed without any changes. Computer Programs excluded,” heralds a leading Free/open source proponent in the large island

OUR dedicated page about NZ (wiki for kiwi) accumulates most of what we wrote about New Zealand’s fight against foreigners and their helpers inside the country — those who wanted monopolies on software recipes. There is good news this week.

“Minister Simon Power confirms the NZ Patent Bill will be passed without any changes. Computer Programs excluded,” writes Don Christie, citing this page. He also writes that:

“Method and apparatus for performing a marketing campaign on behalf of an advertises” – Business method patents in NZ – Patent App #591806

Maybe they can invalidate this just as they drove away this Microsoft OOXML patent a few days ago. It was not invalidated but withdrawn according to a press release. It remains for the “embedded” loophole (masking software as hardware) to be removed or explicitly addressed by the patenting guidelines. █

Summary: The company which made viruses so abundant (and whose operating system is insecure by design) is using excuses and tricks to daemonise WebGL

WE HAVE seen it all before. Whether it was the case of not supporting ODF or even something like Ogg, Microsoft never blamed competitive reasons; it’s just not good for PR and the whole antitrust karma too would be impacted. See how Microsoft used security FUD to promote OOXML [1, 2]. It sure is amusing when Microsoft spinner Mr. Bright excuses Microsoft for avoiding WebGL by citing its talking points (headline says “Microsoft: no way to support WebGL and meet our security needs”). Truth be told, there is clearly more to it considering what’s done with Silverlight (hardware acceleration and Web integration, even with proprietary software).

For Microsoft it is not unusual to snub new standards and create its own proprietary extensions that require Windows with IE. It is no secret that even Microsoft’s Web developers write hacks especially for IE6 (and they detest IE for this reason, based on comments found in page source). Watch Microsoft’s booster Bott spotting a new “Microsoft security versus Microsoft Web” gaffe. Of course he is spinning this. It’s his job.

Microsoft makes shoddy Web products because it wants to turn the Web into a sandbox of lock-in, not interoperability. Instructions for this come from the top. █

“In one piece of mail people were suggesting that Office had to work equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn’t force Office users to use our browser. This Is wrong and I wanted to correct this.

“Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.”

–Bill Gates [PDF]

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: La NZOSS celebra un hito, ya que aleja a Microsoft con su patente de OOXML.

La Oficina de Patentes de Nueva Zelandia[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand] (IPONZ[http://techrights.org/2010/07/20/i-ponzi-on-swpats/]) se ha convertido en un campo de batalla para Microsoft y sus grupos de presión, que comparte con otras multinacionales como IBM e Intel[http://techrights.org/2011/06/13/intel-for-swpats/]. Están esencialmente tratando de colonizar la isla con todo tipo de leyes que imponen a la población bajo el supuesto de que la población quiere ser esclavizada por extranjeros distantes y -me escuchan en Latino America y Africa- el uso de las MENTIRAS típicas (por ejemplo, que las patentes de software ayudarán al país). Alguien una vez nos dijo que en Nueva Zelanda el gobierno está controlado por la población y no al revés (como en muchos países grandes). Días atrás se nos dijo lo contrario.

Bueno, es que parece que la sociedad de Nueva Zelanda de Código Libre/Abierto ha salido con la suya[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1106/S00062/nzoss-wins-patent-opposition.htm]. Desde su nuevo comunicado de prensa:

La NZOSS se complace en anunciar que la oposición a Nueva Zelanda solicitud de patente 536149, presentada por Microsoft en relación con documentos de procesamiento de XML ha sido un éxito. Ayer fuimos informados por la IPONZ que Microsoft ha retirado su solicitud.

La NZOSS aplaude la decisión de Microsoft de abandonar su intento de usar el sistema legal para impedir la interoperabilidad a través de patentes de software que están en los documentos XML de procesamiento de textos. A medida que avanzamos hacia un futuro cada vez más dependiente de la tecnología y el software esperamos que Microsoft entienda que los estándares abiertos y la interoperabilidad son fundamentales para un entorno informático robusto y saludable.

Aquí está el anuncio original[http://nzoss.org.nz/content/nzoss-wins-patent-opposition] y en el interés de la preservación reproducimos a continuación este en su totalidad. La NZOSS tiene un montón de trabajo en frente de ellos, porque ésta es sólo una patente; cambiar la ley en materia de patentes (para eliminar los “integrados” vacíos legales) será el siguiente objetivo importante. Los políticos que apoyan las patentes de software no son compatibles con Nueva Zelanda, apoyan a sus propios bolsillos a costa de Nueva Zelanda. Hay que nombrarlos y avergonzarlos, para debilitarlos y silenciarlos. █

La NZOSS Gana Oposición en Materia de Patentes

Jueves, 16 de junio 2011, 17:18

Comunicado de prensa: Nueva Zelanda Sociedad de Código Libre/Abierto

La NZOSS gana la oposición en materia de Patentes

La NZOSS se complace en anunciar que la oposición a Nueva Zelanda solicitud de patente 536149, presentada por Microsoft en relación con documentos de procesamiento de XML ha sido un éxito. Ayer fuimos informados por la IPONZ que Microsoft ha retirado su solicitud.

La NZOSS aplaude la decisión de Microsoft de abandonar es tratar de usar el sistema legal para impedir la interoperabilidad a través de patentes de software que está en los documentos XML de procesamiento de textos. A medida que avanzamos hacia un futuro cada vez más dependiente de la tecnología y el software esperamos que Microsoft entienda que los estándares abiertos y la interoperabilidad son fundamentales para un entorno informático robusto y saludable.

Las barreras legales que impiden la competencia en torno a las normas son un gran perjuicio para el bien público. Animamos a Microsoft a unirse a la gran mayoría de la industria de Nueva Zelanda de TIC y apoyar la decisión del Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda para excluir las patentes de software, protegiendo así los negocios de Microsoft en Nueva Zelanda de amenazas de patentes en el futuro. La decisión de Microsoft no sólo eliminar la espada de Damocles sobre las cabezas de nuestros propios miembros, sino de toda la comunidad de Nueva Zelanda de las TIC.

Peter Harrison, vicepresidente de la sociedad hizo una declaración ayer informar a los miembros de la decisión de Microsoft de retirarla, diciendo: “Por supuesto, estoy muy contento con el resultado. Se proporcionará una mayor seguridad sobre la capacidad de las entidades comerciales inter-operar con los formatos de Microsoft sin preocuparse por cualquier infracción de patentes. Junto con la exclusión de las patentes de software en el proyecto de ley pendiente de patente que debe ver a un ambiente que es mucho menos riesgoso para el desarrollo de software que en otros países. Esto en combinación con nuestro personal altamente calificado convierte a Nueva Zelanda en una excelente ubicación para el desarrollo de software.”

El NZOSS ha llevado a cabo Oposiciones de Patentes contra dos patentes XML presentada por Microsoft desde el año 2003. El NZOSS sentido estas patentes que se presentan un peligro claro y presente a ambos interoperabilidad entre los productos de Microsoft y de otros proveedores, y potencialmente habría permitido a Microsoft para obligar a otras empresas en los acuerdos de licencia de patentes con el fin de poner en práctica los documentos de procesamiento de textos en XML.

La oposición a los de las patentes de Microsoft XML ha tardado ocho años en resolverse, el tiempo y el compromiso de muchos de nuestros miembros. Hace unos años, después de oponerse a la primera patente, nos pusimos de acuerdo a una importante limitación de las reivindicaciones de la primera patente de tal manera que no creo que alguien alguna vez lo infringe. Posteriormente, nos opusimos a la segunda patente, y se han estado moviendo hacia una audiencia sobre la oposición.

Peter Harrison agregó: “La decisión de Microsoft de abandonar la segundo solicitud de patentes en frente de nuestra oposición ha reivindicado sustancialmente nuestra posición, es decir que estas solicitudes de patentes NO ERAN INVENCIONES PATENTABLES.” Él continuó agradeciendo a todos aquellos involucrados con la oposición, diciendo ” Debo dar las gracias a los esfuerzos de aquellos que hicieron posible este esfuerzo. Matew Holloway ha desempeñado un papel vital y profesional en su análisis detallado y objetivo de la patente. Estoy seguro de que hay pocas personas con la experiencia de Matew en torno a los formatos XML y de productividad de oficina. Sin su ayuda no podría haber sido capaz de montar un caso convincente. Y a nuestros abogados – Ellis | Terry – que hicieron un gran trabajo en la dirigencia de esta oposición, las palabras no pueden expresar mi gratitud por su compromiso de ver esto a través de la conclusión de hoy”.

Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Summary:NZOSS celebrates a milestone as it drives away Microsoft with its OOXML patent

THE PATENT OFFICE of New Zealand (IPONZ) has become a battleground for Microsoft and its lobbyists, which it shares with other multinationals like IBM and Intel. They are essentially trying to colonise the island using all sorts of laws they impose on the population under the assumption that the population wants to be enslaved by distant foreigners and using the typical lies (e.g. that software patent would help the country). Someone once told us that in New Zealand the government is controlled by the population rather than vice versa (like in many large countries). Days ago we were told the opposite.

Well, it sure seems like the New Zealand Open Source Society has just gotten its way. From its new press release:

The NZOSS is pleased to announce that it’s opposition to New Zealand patent application 536149, filed by Microsoft in relation to XML word processing documents has been successful. Yesterday we were informed by IPONZ that Microsoft has withdrawn their application.

The NZOSS applauds the decision of Microsoft to abandon it’s attempt to use the legal system to deter interoperability through it’s software patent on XML word processing documents. As we move into a future increasingly dependent on technology and software we hope Microsoft understands that Open Standards and Interoperability are central to a robust and healthy computing environment.

Here is the original announcement and in the interest of preservation we reproduce this below in full. NZOSS has a lot of work left because this is just one patent; changing the one law regarding patents (to remove the “embedded” loophole) would be an important next goal. Politicians who support software patents do not support New Zealand, they support their own pockets at the expense of New Zealand. Name and shame them as it will weaken and silence them. █

NZOSS Wins Patent Opposition

Thursday, 16 June 2011, 5:18 pm

Press Release: New Zealand Open Source Society

NZOSS Wins Patent Opposition

The NZOSS is pleased to announce that it’s opposition to New Zealand patent application 536149, filed by Microsoft in relation to XML word processing documents has been successful. Yesterday we were informed by IPONZ that Microsoft has withdrawn their application.

The NZOSS applauds the decision of Microsoft to abandon it’s attempt to use the legal system to deter interoperability through it’s software patent on XML word processing documents. As we move into a future increasingly dependent on technology and software we hope Microsoft understands that Open Standards and Interoperability are central to a robust and healthy computing environment.

Legal barriers preventing competition around standards is a great detriment to the public good. We encourage Microsoft to join with the overwhelming majority of the New Zealand ICT Industry and support the decision of the New Zealand Government to exclude software patents, thus protecting Microsoft’s business in New Zealand from future patent threats. Microsoft’s decision will not only remove the Sword of Damocles from above the heads of our own members, but of the entire New Zealand ICT community.

Peter Harrison, Vice President of the society made a statement yesterday informing the membership of Microsoft’s decision to withdaw, saying “I am of course very pleased with the result. It will provide certainty about the ability of commercial entities to inter-operate with Microsoft formats without concern about patent infringement. Along with the exclusion of software patents in the pending Patent Bill we should see a environment that is far less risky for software development than in other countries. This in combination with our highly skilled people makes New Zealand an excellent location for developing software.”

The NZOSS has been conducting Patent Oppositions against two XML patents filed by Microsoft since 2003. The NZOSS felt these patents presented a clear and present danger to both interoperability between Microsoft’s products and that of other vendors, and potentially would have allowed Microsoft to force other companies into patent licensing agreements in order to implement word processing documents in XML.

The opposition to both of the Microsoft XML patents has taken eight years to resolve, and the time and commitment of many of our members. A few years ago, after opposing the first patent, we agreed to a substantial limiting of the claims of the first patent to such an extent that we don’t believe anyone will ever infringe it. Subsequently we opposed the second patent, and have been moving towards a hearing on the opposition.

Peter Harrison added “The decision by Microsoft to abandoned the second patent application in the face of our opposition has substantially vindicated our position; that is that these patent applications were not patentable inventions.” He continue to thank those involved with the opposition, saying “I must thank the efforts of those who made this effort possible. Matthew Holloway played a vital and professional role in his detailed and objective analysis of the patent. I’m sure there are few people with the expertise of Matthew around XML and office productivity formats. Without his help we may not have been able to mount such a compelling case. And to our lawyers – Ellis|Terry – who did a great job of executing this opposition, words can hardly express my gratitude for their commitment to seeing this through to the conclusion today.”

Summary: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), comprising no scientists, rules in favour of software patents and thus endorses a $290 million fine, affecting OOXML

AS PROMISED, this is a standalone post about the i4i ruling at the SCOTUS.

So the news is just about everywhere, especially in the Canadian press (because i4i is a Canadian company). The SCOTUS ruled against Microsoft as we mentioned earlier. King of the trolls, Microsoft, suffers from a verdict which is good news for patent trolls. The i4i case is not about patent trolls (in fact, i4i does have products), but the consequence of it is that rogue patents get legitimacy from the incompetent and at times technically-illiterate SCOTUS (they went to law school many decades ago). The SCOTUS is against fundamental principles that legalese experts rarely grasp and it neglects the people’s interests, too, not just technologists’. It helps monopolists under the assumption that their disinformation campaigns actually bear truths.

About Microsoft losing the case, Rui Seabra says that “being a patent aggressor themselves, they kind of deserve it, however… SCOTUS validating #swpat is definitely not good.” As pointed out by the other side of this debate (patent lawyer Mike Wokasch):

Prediction: Breyer’s concurrence, (w/ Alito & Scalia) re:role of courts, becomes important fodder for the anti-#swpat crowd. #patents #i4i

A FOSS respective on this case can be found in Groklaw, which calls it a “Disappointing Supreme Court decision”. This was covered by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols and Joe Brockmeier too. They explain the relevance to FOSS.

Here is the official decision [PDF] and other news coverage below. The success of Free software is hinged upon eradication of software patents because they impede dissemination. █

• Microsoft loses Word patent appeal
• Microsoft loses U.S. Supreme Court case on patent
• The new standard for justice in patent law is i4i
• I4i wins Microsoft Word suit in U.S. Supreme Court
• Microsoft to pay $290m court fine
• Supreme Court decision could have big effect on patent law
• Microsoft loses $290m patent case over Word tool
• Supreme Court Ruling Seen as a Win for Patent Trolls
• How Microsoft lost 8-0 at the Supreme Court
• Microsofts failed attempt to change patent law forever
• Microsoft loses Supreme Court appeal in i4i case
• Supreme Court Upholds $290 Million Patent Ruling Against Microsoft
• Microsoft Loses Supreme Court Case
• Microsoft loses $300 million Supreme Court case
• Microsoft loses Supreme Court patent appeal
• i4i wins top court battle against Microsoft
• Supreme Court Upholds $290 Million Infringement Award Against Microsoft
• In i4i Case, High Court Pitches 8-0 Shutout Against Microsoft
• Microsoft loses in Supreme Court case versus i4i
• Supreme Court rules Microsoft must pay $290M in patent case
• Microsoft Will Have To Pay $300 Million Patent Fine (MSFT)
• US top court rules against Microsoft in patent case
• Microsoft v. i4i Decided: IP Community Crisis Averted?
• US Supreme Court shoots down Microsoft, orders i4i payday

–Steve Pepper (just days ago)

Summary: The OOXML scandals return to the press, reminding people that corruption is still at the heart of Microsoft Corporation

RARELY do we find journalists with guts these days, but Mark Ballard has been the exception for quite a few years and by addressing Microsoft's "fuckwittery" he helps bring to light again a lot of the corruption surrounding OOXML — a systematic abuse of massive scale which the press almost forgot about. Based on one who seems to have conspired with Microsoft, standards just don’t matter and here is what Ballard has to say about that:

A senior member of a leading British tech standards body has launched an excoriating attack on Cabinet Office efforts to implement the central plank of its ICT Strategy.

The outburst has opened a crack into the secretive world of formal tech standards, suggesting it may be convulsed in a fit of pique not seen since Microsoft got its derided OOXML document format passed by standards bodies around the world in 2008.

Alex Brown, British Standards Institute committee member infamous for overseeing OOXML’s approval, said in his personal blog how he had become exasperated with government efforts to bring ICT standards in line with its policy of easy interoperability of public computer systems.

[...]

The failure and, it was alleged at the time, susceptibility of that process to corruption may have been demonstrated by the OOXML affair.

The alleged corruption was never confirmed, to this correspondent’s knowledge. But it has for more substantial reasons left the process with a stigmata that goes right to the heart of government policy.

The culture of transparency that has swept along in the wake of Sir Tim Berners Lee’s open data initiative has in addition made the BSI look anachronistic.

We wrote about the BSI in posts such as:

• Microsoft Gold-certified Partners in Charge of the United Kingdom? (Updated)
• Renewed Push in the United Kingdom for Truth About OOXML+BSI
• OOXML BRM Convenor Admits British Standards Organisation (BSI) is Essentially a Fraud
• The BSI Has Been Corrupted by Microsoft — Another Chink in ISO’s armor
• OOXML Fiasco: More Legal Action Against the BSI Possible
• British Standards Institute (BSI) Under Fire After Possible ‘Inside Job’

The good thing about OOXML is, it helped show that Microsoft never changed. █

–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Summary: A key participator in the OOXML fiasco mocks an attempt to establish real standards

MICROSOFT zealots are quite the bunch. Those zealots love to characterise freedom lovers as what they themselves are, carefully using stereotypes to portray appreciators of rights, standards and transparency as the “bad guys”. We saw many examples of that last week in ZDNet and days ago we got a reminder when we saw Microsoft's "fox" speaking utter rubbish again. Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] wants to be seen as a professional, but he keeps dodging the questions that matter. Moreover, rather than apologise for helping a corrupt process be corrupt (knowing all sorts of things which turned out to be true later, including patent traps), he carries on moaning and playing dumb. What does it say about him? With UK acceptance of ODF he must be rather bitter. After all, his reputation was burned like an effigy after all he had sacrificed everything for his beloved OOXML. Strong language is all he can descend to now, writing phrases like: “Faced with such clueless fuckwittery it’s tempting simply to ask: what’s the point?” The context is “UK Open Standards”.

Andy Updegrove has responded to this one:

Presumably, being involved in standards activities that are highly relevant to the consulting and implementation business of Alex’s firm, Griffin Brown, has no impact on its fortunes at all. And engaging in some other type of community service – say, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or becoming a Boy Scout leader – would avoid all that tedious travel to the excessively dreary locations where SC 34 (the format standard working group) insists on holding its meetings. Places like Tokyo, Stockholm, Paris, Copenhagen, and Prague.

[...]

The problem, it appears, is that Alex thinks that only those that participate in working groups like SC 34 are competent to judge what should be in a standard, or which among competing standards might be superior. Never mind, of course, that legions of formal standards have never been widely adopted at all, or that consortium standards are frequently adopted over formal standards. But forget that. Those who aren’t inside the formal standards process just don’t get what standards are really and truly all about, so why don’t all you ignorant sods just bugger off?

If the name Alex Brown rings a bell, don’t be surprised. Alex was the convenor of the one week OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting held in 2008 – you know, the one that thought that a one week meeting was an intelligent way to resolve over 1,000 comments on an over 6,000 page specification in order to formalize an open standard. During that meeting, Alex made multiple decisions that were later condemned by many. Four countries filed formal appeals. Alex remains serene about that meeting, the decisions made, and the outcome.

Standards, you see, are not to be questioned by those that are expected to use them. They are to be accepted with the deference to which their developers are entitled. We, who are increasingly utterly dependent on what standards allow us to do, or not do, are never, ever to question the judgment of those that create these precious gifts.

Our role is to take what we’re given, and do what we’re told. Anything else would be “clueless fuckwittery.”

My God, Alex. Where is there an end of it?

“Do take a look,” remarks Groklaw, “and if you are in the UK, you might let the government know what standards are important to you. If you are not one for surveys, it says you can alternatively email cto at cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk” █

NOVELL is a proprietary software company which thinks like a proprietary software company but markets itself as an open source software company or a “Linux company”. Some journalists fall for it and propagate the illusion, even though Novell’s contributions to OpenOffice.org, for example, can almost be summarised as “adding the features Microsoft paid us to add to OpenOffice.org” (antifeatures like OOXML, which helped Microsoft ram is down ISO’s throat). Novell tries monetising Sun’s work to which they added OOXML and other such antifeatures. And who can ever forget Novell's Windows-only OpenOffice releases?

“Will Novell give its OpenOffice.org-related software patents to Microsoft now?”Based on Michael Applebaum’s latest PR piece, Novell’s marketers are back to their odd buzzterm, “agility”, as well as “cloud computing” (more on Fog Computing in this other PR post) and of course “innovation”, the bigger word for “invention” and sometimes a synonym or eurphemism for “patent” (which itself is a euphemism for monopoly). What ever happened to “open source” at Novell? It dissipated after the Microsoft deal.

Novell can go on and on about award nominations (for obscure awards like the CODiE we mentioned the other day), reviews and “success stories”, but the company is a total failure which now feeds Microsoft and some other foes of GNU/Linux with Linux-hostile patents. A lot of pressure is being put on regulatory agencies to stop the CPTN deal, but the OSI and FSF forget to place a lot of the blame and the pressure where it fits (more on that important subject will come later). The main problem is Novell, which could theoretically still withdraw its CPTN deal. Instead, Novell is eager to just sell its patents to Microsoft as soon as possible and an acquisition by attachMSFT is scheduled for 6 days from now, based on Novell. Nobody even raises the question about Novell’s motives. The issue was deflected by spin. Remember what we wrote in 2006 about Novell as a patent minefield in OpenOffice.org. Will Novell give its OpenOffice.org-related software patents to Microsoft now? Boycott Novell. █

Summary: OpenDocument Format (ODF) keeps spreading while OOXML shows patent complications

Somebody called ruslinux (in Twitter) writes: “Berita baik untuk semua pengguna program perkantoran, pemerintah akui OpenDocument Format sbg standar nasioal dg No. SNI ISO/IEC 26300:2011″

“Which I take to mean that ODF now approved as a national standard in Indonesia,” says Rob Weir from IBM.

We wrote about this (or something similar) last year after we explained what Microsoft had been doing in Indonesia. This helped in providing some background.

The i4i case is back in the news, showing OOXML’s legal problems. For those who cannot recall, Microsoft and its friends (like Alex Brown) lied about the patent status of OOXML in order to push it past ISO. It’s a good thing that nations do not adopt OOXML. The case is still ongoing (many appeals) and OOXML suffers as a result. In another case, Microsoft is appealing a decision regarding its abusive behaviour which Pogson explains as follows:

Duh… It’s not “double recovery”. The conspirators conspired to set up their criminal organization that way. Make them pay for it. That’s a judgment to be made in penalty phase, what portion of the overcharging was due to M$. Pathetic… criminals protected by the legal system.

When consumers complain they are told the competition does not protect them but businesses in competition. When businesses sue, they are kicked out because they did not buy direct from M$.

That’s just Microsoft bending the law. █

Summary: Microsoft uses dirty old tactics of spin, characterising itself as pro-choice and software freedom as against choice

Luke Hopewell from ZDNet.com.au helps Microsoft spread lots more propaganda this week (pushed through ZDNet, as usual). Microsoft Australia’s CTO is just given the platform to spout out a whole lot of nonsense such as:

“We believe in choice, and things should stand or fall by their own merits. Locking something in through denying interoperability is something that doesn’t promote that and that’s something we don’t support,” Stone said.

To lie with a straight face takes great courage. Suddenly they try to paint software freedom as “denying” “choice”. The hypocrisy knows no bounds and the ‘choice’ lie is a subject we explained here before [1, 2]. Using gymnastics in logic, Microsoft tries to make it seem like policies that favour free/open source software are impeding ‘choice’, just like Microsoft tried to cast the proprietary (Microsoft-only) OOXML as ‘choice’, where basically it relied on the confusion between standards and applications (it is desirable to have one standard with many applications implementing it, otherwise people cannot collaborate).

Over at IDG, the pro-Microsoft Nancy Gohring helps Microsoft spread ODF FUD [1, 2] right now:

Microsoft is also complaining about what it calls a lack of full support for the OpenDocument Format in Google Docs, which is used at least informally by some government agencies. When Google Docs renders documents created in ODF, it alters them by, for example, changing page numbers, said Curt Kolcun, vice president of Microsoft’s U.S. Public Sector group. Microsoft was subjected to intense pressure around the globe by government agencies that insisted it support the open document standards.

Watch how history is softened over time. When Gohring says “subjected to intense pressure” she actually refers to Microsoft corrupting (e.g. bribing), deceiving, buying votes, and bullying critics. And what for? To call its proprietary, monopolistic application “a standard” and then force governments (at taxpayers’ expense) to keep buying it, which in turn forces citizens to buy it (network effect). How malicious.

As for Google Docs, it’s not an example of good ODF support; as Carlo Piana recently put it, it turned his spreadsheet into spread s***. It’s a proprietary application, so it does not matter much and articles that paint it as “Google vs Microsoft” (rather than FOSS versus Office) are no better than those who talk about Mac vs PC/Apple vs Microsoft. It is a bogus, diversionary dilemma which excludes real contenders. █

Summary: OOXML is shown to be broken just as the fifth ODF plugfest starts in Maidenhead town hall (UK)

SEVERAL years after Microsoft’s push for OOXML really began it still remains rather extinct. People make a mental note which says that .docx is a format people dislike and are often unable to open. Search engines too can provide some evidence of the scarcity of OOXML on the Web. Technical people know that OOXML such a bad, poorly-constructed specification, whereas computer users who are less technical usually view it as alien and unfamiliar (even if Microsoft assigns the same icons to OOXML). Rob Weir highlights the important findings about OOXML breaking apart and causing great trouble:

Microsoft’s controversial Office Open XML format, now officially called just Open XML*, has an embarrassing bug in its Office 2010 and/or Office 2007 implementation, as reported by Dennis O’Reilly on Cnet.

In a nutshell: if you save a document from Word 2010 using the default .docx format, and send it to a user with Word 2007 but who has a different default printer driver, then a few seemingly random spaces may get dropped from between words or sentences when it is opened on the other machine. When saved in Word 2007, the spaces remain missing if the document is re-opened in Word 2010.

Even CNET (CBS) has just covered it:

Some readers took exception when I stated in a post from last month on future-proofing your data archive that Microsoft’s proprietary Office file formats may not stand the test of time. Well, compatibility problems have already surfaced between the two most recent releases of MS Word.

Several people report spaces being dropped randomly from documents created in Word 2010 when the files are opened in Word 2007 on another machine. (A post on the Microsoft Answers forum explains the problem in more detail.)

So there we have another lesson regarding the failures of OOXML. Support for ODF, on the other hand, keeps expanding. Incidentally, the UK-based ODF plugfest starts today. It started 2 hours ago. █

Summary: Headsup about Microsoft’s latest attempts to hijack the voice of its opposition so as to ensure the competition does not get to speak and receive the priority it deserves

Reform of the patent systems is on everybody’s lips, but each party means something else when it says “reform”. Basically, many corporations want the patent systems to become more friendly towards them (Microsoft is lobbying on the matter right now [1, 2]) and mere people are hardly taking part in this debate, which includes the Patent Reform Act of 2011 [1, 2, 3] (put forth by senators who are being lobbied by corporations).

Even though Google starts moving in the right direction (more seriously challenging software patents while, just like Red Hat, adding some software patents to its own stash, allegedly for defensive purposes), the Larry Page-led company is trying to amass new patents in bulk, unlike Red Hat whose role is quite unique. Basically, Google is still too shy to say that it wants software patents nuked (the shareholders might not understand such a stance), whereas Red Hat sends a less ambiguous message.

Meanwhile, there is a coalition of companies which defend patent monopolies using the “fair” spin (like the “F” in FRAND). The new article “Patent Reform Act 2011: Winners and Losers” sheds some light on it, as well as on other things:

Two other supporters of the bill are Microsoft and IBM but a group representing fourteen technology companies that include some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley — such as Apple, Google, Cisco, Intel and Symantec issued a statement Thursday saying that the senate judiciary bill still needs a lot of work. These companies are all part of a group called the Coalition for Patent Fairness which is a diverse group of companies and industry associations dedicated to enhancing U.S. innovation, job creation, and competitiveness in the global market by modernizing and strengthening our nation’s patent system. Coalition for Patent Fairness members include Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, Cisco, Dell, Google, Intel, Intuit, Micron, Oracle, RIM, SAP, Symantec, Verizon.

Having recently embedded itself inside the FOSS community (by paying FOSDEM organisers for example), Microsoft is now trying to subvert and water down public policies like its front group ACT does. Following this duo’s subversion of EIFv2 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], they once again pretend to be FOSS or SMB representatives as amid OOXML outage in Australia [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] Gary Gray makes commitments to “open source”. See this new report titled “Microsoft seeks inclusion after open source mandate”:

Software giant welcomes AGIMO’s open source policy.

Microsoft has called for the Australian Government’s agencies to engage with “all forms” of software development communities – be they proprietary or open source – in response to official moves in Canberra to embrace open source alternatives.

In a letter to Special Minister of State Gary Gray released on Monday, the software giant welcomed the Federal Government’s newly revised open source policy, which required agencies to consider open source in IT procurements.

[...]

Microsoft also offered to contribute to the development of a Federal Guide to Open Source Software, noting that its experience as a vendor to Government could be of some value to AGIMO’s review.

Microsoft is just trying to intervene so that it does not get excluded based on the fact that it sells unacceptable lock-in. This is where the pretence comes into play. If Microsoft can pretend to be a FOSS embracer and also use front groups to speak ‘on behalf’ of small businesses, then no public policy will get rid of the real issue. For what it’s worth, Novell helped Microsoft a lot in this regard (pretending that Microsoft is friendly towards GNU/Linux). Due to Novell influence (at least in part), OOXML in LibreOffice remains problematic, and that’s despite the PR statement from LibreOffice. To quote a new article: “As of now, LibreOffice doesn’t look very different and other than incorporating patches from the Novell Go-OO project, it’s pretty much the same although it appears that the fork will diverge further in coming versions. Moreover, a lot of cleaning house has taken place under the hood. As of now, there’s no roadmap on where the project is headed.” This is the type of thing which helps Microsoft lobby for OOXML in Australia and the Novell-funded Go-OO team should be ashamed of itself. █