Comments

• The NDA

  2008-06-23 18:21:25

  And just what are the details of the NDA required to participate?
  
  Sounds like even more reason why we should keep the ODF proecess open.

• BoomBoom

  2008-06-23 19:22:12

  If you can't beat 'em, then make 'em drink your kool-aid then eat 'em, eh, Microsoft? It's no wonder anyone with half a brain don't trust MS. Same old 'embrace extend exterminate' tactics, time and again. They're doing it in desperation this time, because they're dying and know it despite the noise they make in Redmond to the contrary. It's only a matter of time before they're so much bad history, but the amount of damage they can do on their way out is something to be wary of.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-06-23 20:11:20

  I see that Bruce D'Arcus now weight in. He carries a similar message:
  
  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200806/msg00078.html
  
  Also to keep in mind:
  
  http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/04/07/the-ugliness-of-it-all/
  
  "Another way for Microsoft to attack ODF would be to oppose the standardization of ODF 1.2. They will use the same tactics they had with OOXML, but in the opposite direction. It will be funny to watch how the ISO and the national standards bodies will switch all of a sudden to a demanding stance on ODF 1.2, which will only be an iteration of an existing ISO standard. I am afraid we will witness such a shocking twist in the standardization bodies’ attitude."
  
  He said this just before Microsoft announced that it would support (or 'support') ODF.

• Not Fluoridated

  2008-06-23 22:36:47

  Yes, please come to Redmond. Are you thirsty? Drink THIS. There... feel better now? Now watch this shiny object swinging back and forth, back and forth, back and forth... and when you wake up, you'll ask that ODF be taken out of the ISO standards and given to us.
  
  My former employer sure went for the Microsoft line, hook & sinker. Especially the sinker part. They're now out of business, to a great extent because of MS. If OASIS isn't careful, it could happen to them too.
  
  Microsoft had a great opportunity to participate when ODF was being developed. They refused. Then, all they wanted was to steal the good ideas to put into MS-XML (aka OOXML) without contributing back. Now, they want to act like they're concerned about ODF being a universal format for everyone.
  
  I don't believe them any more than I believe Dick Cheney. And that's pretty far down the credibility scale.

• DOUGman

  2008-06-24 00:17:42

  Well, if people are so stupid to believe MS with all the BS that they have done in the past, then it's their own stupidity. MS, will never change, to the earlier post, ‘embrace extend exterminate’ is the name of the game....SO true.
  
  Remember the Sun Tzu... know your enemy.
  
  People should memorize this line, when MS comes a knocking....
  
  "Frak off....."
  
  D.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-06-24 05:01:44

  "They are so predictable," tells me someone who has watched this since day 1. Let's see who falls for it.
  
  I bet Microsoft will promise a free trip and all sorts of 'funs'... maybe even a trip down to Disneyland (sarcasm)
  
  Mind you, the guy who invites them, Doug Mahugh, on is also known as "Elephant in the Room" for the most disgusting of dirty tricks.
  
  http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/the-elephant-in.html
  
  Doug Mahugh also said about OOXML that it's a simple matter of Microsoft's commercial interest. The guy one of the dirtiest among the bunch. It's almost like being invited by Satan.

• Jose

  2008-06-29 00:12:23

  That attitude makes the anti-microsoft camp lose credibility.
  
  For years Microsoft opponents complained Microsoft didn't document their protocols and file formats. That was presented as unfair competition because of their monopoly. Still, the approval of OOXML as an ISO standard encountered tremendous opposition. Microsoft announced they were going to support ODF in Office and again people like you came up with the darkest reasons and plots behind that decision.
  
  Whatever reasons made Microsoft support ODF or document some of their protocols be happy and let consumers/users decide for themselves what they want.
  
  You come across as somebody who is afraid consumers are going to choose Microsoft which you consider a bad choice. Now that Microsoft took away one of your biggest argument (closed protocols and closed file formats) you vilify the company.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-06-29 05:17:31

  Did you think they would ever properly support ODF? Do you not believe that they only do this to avoid defections (pinning down contracts based on promises)? Why did they not support ODF at the start when they were first invited? What about precedence that serves as a lesson in such scenarios?
  
  By the way, there is no "anti-Microsoft camp". There's a pro-open standards camp; Microsoft just doesn't want to be part of it; it never did. It wants to be 'the' standard (de facto).
  
  "We want to own these standards, so we should not participate in standards groups. Rather, we should call 'to me' to the industry and set a standard that works now and is for everyone's benefit. We are large enough that this can work."
  
  

  --Microsoft Corporation, internal memo (source [compressed PDF])

• Jose

  2008-06-30 00:05:18

  Microsoft may very well have wanted to keep their standards closed (protocols or file formats). Had the legal context as well as the market context allowed it, I believe they would have done just that. I also believe, however, that any other company in their position would have done the exact same thing.
  
  Microsoft decided to support ODF now instead of when they were invited. So what? I'm convinced Microsoft, like any other corporation, makes decisions that they think will further their interests. Given the current legal context and market demands, they probably think that now is the time to support ODF.
  
  You can speculate all you want about whatever dark reasons made them support ODF, that's irrelevant. You think Microsoft will not support ODF properly! What does that mean? If you mean they are going to support it with their best interests in mind, well of course, like any other company supporting a standard. If you think they are going to sabotage in some subtle way their support of ODF in Office I would say that's wishful thinking. As much as you don't like them admit at least that they are smarter than that.
  
  You claim to be pro-open standards. Yes I believe you are but I believe you are first anti-Microsoft and then pro-open standards. Any objective and reasonable person that is first pro-open standards would consider Microsoft support of ODF and Microsoft submission of OOXML as an ISO standard a victory (which I think it is as well as good for users). Instead you vilify Microsoft and one of its employees.
  
  So yes there is an "anti-Microsoft camp". A "de facto" one.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-06-30 06:11:02

  Any objective and reasonable person that is first pro-open standards would consider Microsoft support of ODF and Microsoft submission of OOXML as an ISO standard a victory (which I think it is as well as good for users).

  
  
  Did you see what they do for OOXML? Do you consider bullying, bribery and extortion to be acceptable? Moreover, have you not seen that OOXML is Windows-specific and a case against the GPL? What about Microsoft's history when it comes to standards?

• RiaD

  2008-06-30 13:25:57

  Pathetic little blog this is.
  
  For people needing full and correct information read: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200806/msg00084.html
  
  Even IBM's Rob Weir confirming that inviting ODF TC members to Redmond is actually a good thing and supporting it fully.

• Roy Bixler

  2008-06-30 13:58:52

  It's a fair point to say that Microsoft is damned if they and damned if they don't support ODF. Then again I would say that this is Microsoft's own fault that they have such a bad reputation in the industry that they have earned such deep distrust among so many of us. It would be interesting if Microsoft does the right thing, supports ODF correctly, doesn't try to undermine it and participates in its further development, but I won't be holding my breath.