If you are new to the Burton Group saga, you are encouraged to read some background on this [1, 2, 3, 4]. These are not primers or introductions to the issue, but the gist of it all is that proxies appear to be disseminating disinformation. Presented below are a few of the responses generated from that FUD piece from the Burton Group. It came from what seems like a secret ally of Microsoft.

Report fuels OpenOffice vs. OOXML debate

OpenOffice.org has dismissed an analyst report from Burton Group which claims that Microsoft's Office Open XML document format is preferable to the OpenDocument Format.

[...]

Burton Group also attracted controversy in August 2007 when it warned businesses against the use of Google Apps, another free software competitor to Microsoft Office.

Read that last sentence again, if necessary. We stressed that point before. And just look at the gross bias here: [via Andy Updegrove]

In some ways, [the Burton Group's] O'Kelly and Creese's analysis hinges on this inevitability, implying that the ODF camp might be better off lying down in the face of Microsoft's will and market dominance and instead tap into OOXML's openness to create other "productivity ecosystem" opportunities. Many, however, question Microsoft's commitment to keeping the standard "open." Burton's analysts err on the side of taking Microsoft at its word, depicting Microsoft's go-to-alone OOXML standards stance with regard to openness as well-intentioned.

"The debate and scrutiny are not surprising, given Microsoft's historical track record as an extremely aggressive competitor and convicted monopolist, but it's important to understand that Microsoft appears to be sincerely committed to making OOXML a substantive standard," O'Kelly and Creese write.

This says nothing about Microsoft intentions to deviate from OOXML as (partially) documented. It also says nothing about the endless crimes which show that the "historical track record as an extremely aggressive competitor and convicted monopolist" (to use Burton's own words) continues to this date. Just moments ago we showed some new examples from Croatia.

From BetaNews:

Rather than attack some of their more questionable arguments, such as ODF being a political statement rather than as the platform for Lotus' next possible software suite for Mac OS, the ODF Alliance issued a treatise (PDF available here) taking apart many of the Burton Group's claims one-by-one, including the notion that theirs is the latest "everybody-but-Microsoft" standard to fail to attain momentum.

From the press in the Philippines:

"The openXML criticisms has no backing,” said Tom Robertson, general manager of corporate interoperability and standards group of Microsoft Corp. in a briefing here, who said that Microsoft products are also going to support ODF through a translator.

We covered these affairs in the Philippines quite recently and it's funny how Microsoft mentions Novell's work on OOXML rather than support it natively, which it probably will do anyway. Microsoft and the Burton Burton are trying to create uncertainty at the moment. Just look at the article above in its entirety. In general, many of the articles that speak about the new 'study' (all the above) are pure FUD because they are based on wrong assumptions and suppositions that serve Microsoft. They echo incorrect statements.

“The press is being deceived by incorrect information, which is truly unfortunate and by all means deliberately planned (by those who unleashed the paper at a tactical moment).”We are continuing to collect more and more evidence of the ties between this research firm and Microsoft. We apologise if it's seen as 'strong' content for this Web site, but if you keep track of our posts, you'll see how profoundly these issues can be explored. When it comes to OOXML/ODF studies, it's sometimes the money which talks most loudly, as opposed to reality doing its work. We spoke about this problem only a couple of weeks back.

The future still looks very bright for OpenDocument Format. The press is being deceived by incorrect information, which is truly unfortunate and by all means deliberately planned (by those who unleashed the paper at a tactical moment). ⬆