"It’s a Simple Matter of [Microsoft’s] Commercial Interests!"

--Microsoft's Doug Mahugh about OOXML in Malaysia

Summary: OOXML/ISO corruptions tied not only to Microsoft employees but also their seemingly-independent accomplices

OOXML corruptions are a well-documented fact and the phrase "insider friend, ‘the fox’" comes from Microsoft itself (an internal presentation that also encourages bribery).

Evidence surrounding Alex Brown's role (and conflict of interests) is a subject we have already covered in many posts that include [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21].

More recently, Alex Brown got extremely busy with OOXML, removing criticisms from the article in Wikipedia. There is no surprise there. Now we find this story from Brazil about Brown's role in violating any rule of reason in order to push through OOXML.

Why Alex Brown, even knowing the importance of the issue, shamelessly manipulated the meeting to prevent the proposal presentation by Brazil ?

I think many of these questions will stay unanswered, but I’d really like to understand what motivated the Alex Brown to change in such an outrageous way the course (and outcome) of OpenXML in ISO.

Since this meeting ended in Geneva, I haven’t spent even one day of my life without wondering: What would have happened if we had presented our proposal, and what motivated Alex Brown to manipulate in such a way that meeting?

Now that everyone knows the “backstage” of Alex Brown’s decision, preventing Brazil to present the binary mapping proposal of the last BRM day, a few comments are pertinent.

Reviewing everything that happened during the BRM, the manipulation of the meeting progress by Alex Brown is getting more and more evident, and it’s also clear that he was responsible for enforcing the hidden agenda of the meeting. A quick search on his blog, his “contributions” to OpenXML in ISO and his relationship with ECMA (and ECMA members), will show the close relationship he has with OpenXML (and this is the minimum I can write about it).

An example of such manipulation of the agenda is clear and obvious: The ECMA delegation (as far as I remember ECMA isn’t a ISO National Body) had 30 minutes in each of the first two days of the BRM to make a speeches about “legacy compatibility”. In summary, the Brazilian delegation (which is an ISO National Body), couldn’t speak for lack of time, but the ECMA had 30 minutes in each of the first two days of the meeting to make their speech. This stupidity didn’t happened on the other days of the BRM because on the second day of the BRM, during a meeting between Alex Brown and the HoDs, Deivi (head of the Brazilian delegation) filed a protest against these ECMA’s speeches.

Talking about ECMA’s speeches, one of those was given by a representative of the British Library, and I mention this fact because I have the impression that the triad British Library, Alex Brown and Microsoft may turn on some lights for my U.K. friends ( and I would love to know what they have to say about it).

When does shilling become a punishable crime? And what does ISO have to say about it? ⬆

"ISO is dead for software standards. Do you need an official funeral?"

--Benjamin Henrion, FFII

Photo from the public domain