10.10.08
Who’s Afraid of MicrISOsoft? The European Commission
“[A]mazing that corruption is excepted by the entire developed world. Stunning that it has met with resistance only with some developing nations and maybe the European Union. What should have been an overwhelming anger by all nations. The notion that developed nation are immune to corruption is bogus. Microsoft did it in full view, without any hesitation. Microsoft should be nailed for this.”
NOW THAT speculations about further abuse in Europe continue to seem more reasonable, the European Commission (EC) is said to be investigating. As the financial turmoil shows, there is always need for good policing and regulation, so the EC has a responsibility to show that those who do the crime will also do the time.
The latest news from Norway got covered here before [1, 2, 3, 4], but IDG has just circulated this article and threw it to the mix. Here is its summary:
Over half of Norway’s ISO body, Standard Norway, have resigned over the country’s approval for OOXML, citing Microsoft influence.
[sarcasm] But hey! If most of those standards ‘experts’ from Norway quit in protest, it must be just bias. They must be Rabid™ ‘Haters®’ (bad labels [1, 2]) of Microsoft, right?[/sarcasm]
Never mind the truth and never mind the fact that ISO has officially been grabbed by Microsoft. As Rob Weir put it the other day, “Microsoft’s representation has swelled so it now comprises 20-50% of any given meeting. And that does not count those additional “independent” companies and contractors that are employed by Microsoft to create OOXML convertors or to consult with on OOXML matters. [...] I think you’ll find no other case in SC34 attendance records of a single company sending more than a single representative. Everyone else in the world sends one person. IBM once sent two people. Microsoft sends ten or a dozen.”
Where on Earth of 'the press' and why is it still shying away from such a distasteful disaster? Other curious minds want to know.
the company has existed since the early 90s using pure anti-competitive tactics and nothing more and with their IBM handed monopoly position, they have thrived. MS-OOXML was 100% a reaction to ODF, their tactics to use ECMA and the fasttrack mechanism 100% a reaction to ODF, and the stuffing of the ISO committees to get MS-OOXML passed through the fasttrack process still 100% a reaction to ODF. And now, they are stuffing more committees so they can take over ISO’s ODF control.
And the tech press is more concerned with iPhone SDK licensing issues while all this has been going on. We know who still owns the press these days.
In addition to the sheer abuse of this process, there are also those infamous legal traps in OOXML, as recently reaffirmed by attorney Brendan Scott. Another fairly comprehensive analysis has just been posted by Andre, who writes:
The main sponsor behind OOXML, the Microsoft Corporation, assured the European Commission that they would chose a RF model for their future Office format.1 However, their public affairs representatives repeatedly casted doubt whether their chosen patent license model would enable implementations under the GNU GPL and forcefully lobbied domestic and oversees legislators against open standards. The intense struggle has two levels. On one layer the question is RAND or RF as appropriate licensing conditions, on a second layer the attempt was to redefine the terminology of “open standards” to become RAND compatible. A “success” of the lobbying effort was the ITU-T definition of “open standards” drafted by a patent attorney working group which made the limbo for RAND licensing conditions. As an effect all international standards would become “open standards”. It comes at no surprise that vendors are sceptical about the honesty of the Microsoft patent schemes and are suspicious about hidden agendas.
There is an unconfirmed rumour now that the Commission might not investigate the ISO scandals because they are too afraid to intervene in an international organisation. IBM is said to be pushing to ensure the case is concluded.
“IBM is said to be pushing to ensure the case is concluded.”Dangerous here is the fact that the court system is very expensive for anyone else to pursue, as the UKUUG has already found out [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].
In the United States, someone has said that there is case law concerning committee stuffing or vote rigging (Comcast was caught stuffing it up and it's far from the first time for Microsoft), but if the commission wants to carry out a complete or at least comprehensive probe, a lot of traveling will be involved, e.g. to 'puppet nations'.
Two months ago we showed how ISO members were prepared to nominate Microsoft itself for the maintainable of so-called interoperability. As it turns out now, the already-Microsoft-stacked SC34 is now set to elect some more people. This one is a recipe for further abuse and more committee stuffing. From the page:
In accordance Resolution 8 of the SC 34 Jeju plenary meeting, Working Group 5 has been established. SC 34 members are invited to nominate their experts to participate in this Working Group. Please send a list of participants showing names, affiliations and e-mail addresses to the SC 34 Secretariat by 2008-11-15. The information received will be forwarded to the WG 5 Convener for creation of a mailing list.
Further down it shows that Microsoft (and its cronies) are bound to decide on the creation of a committee that handles ODF.
Resolution 8: Establishment of Working Group 5
SC 34 establishes Working Group 5 as follows:
Title: Document Interoperability
Terms of Reference: Develop principles of, and guidelines for, interoperability among documents represented using heterogeneous ISO/IEC document file formats. The initial work includes preparation of the Technical Report on ISO/IEC 26300 – ISO/IEC 29500 translation.
SC 34 instructs its Secretariat to issue a call for participation to the SC 34 members and to request ISO and IEC to publicise the existence of WG 5 to encourage participation from all who are eligible.
The room for abuse there is amazing. No wonder ISO is dead. █
“I have lost my sleep and peace of mind for last two months over these distasteful activities by Microsoft.”
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 12:14 pm
WG5 isn’t going to “handle ODF”. It’s about interoperation.
How ODF maintenance will be handled with regards to the new committees hasn’t been decided fully yet, but the development will almost certainly stay within OASIS.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Please follow the link I gave:
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/08/germany-and-canada-odf/
Handling ODF-OOXML includes handling ODF. That aside, Microsoft(‘s stuffed panel) wants to seize control of ODF too.
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Verifiable nonsense, Roy. Your links-to-more-links-wot-I-wrote “evidence” counts for nothing.
The SC34 liason put forward has been about institution rules, not substantive changes.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Yes, and I’ve explained how, given the known stuffing of SC34, this opens the door to further abuse. I didn’t focus on the rules themselves.
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 3:30 pm
SC34 is irrelevant, you’re making claims about the WG5 interop group.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“SC 34 members are invited to nominate their experts to participate in this Working Group [WG5]. “
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 3:38 pm
As I keep saying, WG5 is not going to maintain ODF. That’s a fiction that you’ve invented. The scope of the WG doesn’t allow it.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Sure, but saying that connecting ODF and OOXML is nothing to do with ODF like saying that JavaScript has nothing at all to do with Java.
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Well, that statement shows me that you know very little about either Java or Javascript, because there is no relationship between the two, which I’m suggesting is not the point you wanted to make.
Translating ODF and OOXML has nothing to do with the maintenance of ODF. The ODF TC take suggestions for features which improve interoperability (see, for example, the discussion of lists). But that’s just part of normal debugging, it’s nothing to do with development.
I thought you said you subscribed to the OASIS TC?
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Actually, as I wrote many times before, Java and JS are as much alike as car and carpet. I’m aware of the differences because I’ve programmed in both.
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Well, in my book, cars and carpets aren’t very much alike at all, in which case your original post means that you accept that WG5 is nothing at all like office-tc.
So, which is it? Do you recognise your claim was faulty, or are you tryi/ng to support it with dodgy similies between vehicles and soft furnishing?
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 4:04 pm
ODF and OOXML are both ‘objects’ (one a standard and one an ugly blob…remember that Microsoft does not support ISO OOXML) and WG5 is a vehicle between them.
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Just because you keep saying WG5 is the vehicle between them doesn’t mean that WG5 has any control over ODF.
It’s really very simple:
* OASIS maintain ODF
* the ODF tc will likely, in the future, liase with ISO for future revisions
* ISO will review/correct/etc. the standard before approving it
* once approved, WG5 will help map it to OOXML
As you can see, WG5 is at the wrong end of the process to actually have much influence on the ODF development.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm
You are oversimplifying.
AlexH said,
October 10, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Not at all, I’m operating on the facts which you so far don’t seem to want to link here because it undermines your arguments.
Nobody, ISO included, thinks WG5 is taking over ODF maintenance except you. OASIS is responding to a liason request regarding rules.
This is in the public record; which I note you have been scrupulously careful not to link from here.1
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 5:16 pm
if such a thing exists, I do not know where. Please provide it rather than accuse me of of being “scrupulous”.
Ziggyfish said,
October 10, 2008 at 5:57 pm
AlexH:
The biggest problem is the 3rd point of the process.
* ISO will review/correct/etc. the standard before approving it
The ISO if corrupted by Microsoft, will disapprove/correct changes to the proposed ODF standard that may conflict with Microsoft’s best interest. This means that the control of ODF is really in the hands of ISO (and Microsoft).
Where SC34 comes in is Microsoft has control over the committees, and SC34 controls the ODF standards.
Also AlexH, please keep in mind the nature of this site, take what’s on this website lightly.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 10, 2008 at 6:00 pm
AlexH works on Novell’s former project, Hula, which is now called Bongo.
Slashdot User said,
October 10, 2008 at 8:28 pm
> AlexH works on Novell’s former project,
> Hula, which is now called Bongo.
And this is relevant because…?
Dan O'Brian said,
October 10, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“It’s relevant” because Roy is trying to discredit AlexH’s argument by playing the “guilt by association” card that Roy claimed to find distasteful just the other day.
This of course, is no great surprise because Roy is the personification of hypocrisy.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 1:32 am
I don’t associate him with another person. Think of this as a disclosure rather (not a new one).
O’Brian and Hudson are here to achieve one goal: to discredit the site in any way, at any given opportunity.
Jim B said,
October 11, 2008 at 2:27 am
The norwegian committee issue you mentioned is just about a single committee advisingthe national body and about the previous stuffing members now leaving again. It is not at all about half the national body leaving as your post suggests.
A quote from someone who has been a member of that committe for years (and still is)
[quote]This article is wrong!
This article is basically bullshit.
What’s happened here is that lots of people joined the committee to oppose the standard, and while in the committee that’s all they’ve done. Now that OOXML has been approved, they no longer have any reason to be in the committee, so they are leaving. That’s hardly the committee imploding.
So let me say this again: not one of these people have done anything in this committee other than oppose OOXML being taken up as a standard. These people are not key people in the committee. They did try to get other people in the committee to join them, but nobody else wanted to leave in protest over this.
What they are, however, is media-savvy. They’ve worked on all kinds of IT-related advocacy (anti-DRM, pro-open source, etc etc), so they send out a press release stating that this is a big protest, and the committee is imploding etc etc. This article is basically that press release translated to English and prettied up to look like an article.
I guess at this point people will be wondering how I know this. I’ve been a member of this committee since 2001, and I know many of the people on that list personally. I voted against OOXML, because I thought it wasn’t ready to become a standard. The trouble is: however much you may hate Microsoft, this article remains a piece of useless propaganda.
posted by : Lars Marius Garshol, 04 October 2008 [/quote]
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 3:00 am
So Steve Pepper, for example, joined the committee just to stuff it?
“Steve Pepper is the Senior Information Architect at STEP Infotek, a division of Infostream specializing in standards-based information reengineering. He represents Norway on JTC 1/SC 34, the ISO committee responsible for the development of SGML and related standards, and is convenor of WG 3 (Information association), whose responsibilities include the HyTime and Topic Map standards. A frequent speaker at SGML and XML events around the world, he is the author and maintainer of the “Whirlwind Guide to SGML and XML tools” and co-author (with Charles Goldfarb and Chet Ensign) of the “SGML Buyer’s Guide” (Prentice-Hall, 1998).”
http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2000/author/s11-01auth1.html
Jim B said,
October 11, 2008 at 3:13 am
Actually Steve Pepper allready stated he’d quite before.
His name on that list is therefore moot.
None of the other people on that list was a member over a year ago.
AlexH said,
October 11, 2008 at 3:18 am
Oh man. Roy, I thought we agreed shooting the messenger was bad? I though we said just yesterday that associating individuals to things you don’t like was a low blow? So how come you are still trying to associate me to Novell as a way of discrediting things I say?
How about instead of throwing around your usual insults, you ask to be shown how OASIS works? I’m quite happy too link you to the current statement on SC34 liason. You’ll notice it doesn’t mention WG5.
I’ve tried to explain the process to you in simple terms, but either you don’t understand or you don’t want to understand. That doesn’t bother me. What does bother me are your constant attacks of association.
You seek to discredit me even though I have no connection to Novell, and now you’re seeking too discredit OpenDocument by associating it with ISO, an organisation which has already helped shape the ODF standard. It’s sick, you claim to be a friend of free software, but you just bash, bash, bash.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 3:31 am
Disclosure of potential interests bis ot association with another person.
Here you are throwing toys accusing me of discrediting when all you ever do in this site is discredit it (and me).
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 3:33 am
Jim B,
You’re already moving goalposts. I find it interesting that you quote the very same person Microsoft employees are quiting. It reminds me of Patrick Durusau and his ‘letters’.
AlexH said,
October 11, 2008 at 4:24 am
Hardly throwing my toys out of the pram; the more people who know about Bongo the better. However, I find it extremely hypocritical that you engage in actions you complain about in others. You also never state that our project was screwed up by Novell; you just try to paint it as a Novell project because that suits your purpose.
If I discredit your site it’s because the “facts” you post are often dangerous made-up nonsense. Even thought I’ve shown you the OASIS position on SC34 liason, you haven’t updated this story and you still persist in the FUD that WG5 is somehow going to take over ODF.
Again I find myself having to defend a project that is important to free software – ODF – which you are trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about. I doubt people will fall for your lttle stories when they follow the links and figure things out for themselves.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 4:30 am
No, I was not suggesting this. I said that a Microsoft-stacked committee can spread its influence to another group in ISO where ill interests might pervade.
How do I spread FUD? By encouraging action against abuse? Pointing bad things out is not FUD; it’s a request for action to prevent those bad things.
AlexH said,
October 11, 2008 at 4:36 am
It’s FUD because you’re suggesting that WG5 has any influence on the standards; which is totally incorrect.
WG5 will work with the standards as output. At “worst”, it will report back to TCs those features which are difficult to convert to other formats. It’s about OOXML and ODF for now, but may well include UOF in the future too.
Your “warnings” are misleading and scare-mongering.
Boycot IBM too said,
October 11, 2008 at 5:40 am
How about IBM that has control of OASIS OpenDocument TC?
They has like 12 member in the TC and have the most voting members since like 5 years or so.
IBM is just abusing the ODF TC to sell it’s own Notes 8 suite
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 6:32 am
“Boycot [sic] IBM “,
Microsoft is a large player in the office suites space. Why did it refuse to join standardisation attempts several years ago? Did it not believe standards were important?
Boycot IBM too said,
October 11, 2008 at 7:11 am
[quote]Why did it refuse to join standardisation attempts several years ago?[/quote]
Roy, you avoided the questions about the dominance of IBM in the OASIS TC and ODF standardization proces which standardization of the format they use to promote their closed Notes 8 office suite. IBM is the biggest patent claimer in the world and their patent licencing (ISP) on ODF is even more limited than MS patent license (OSP).
Further more I do not understand your answer.
Could you please show me from the OASIS archives (or anywhere else) any message from the last 3-5 years or so from Microsoft in which they refused to join a standards effort ?
Also I seem to remember that is was actually the EU who asked Microsoft to standardize their MS Office 2003 XML formats (WordML, SpreadsheetML and PresentationsML) in 2004. This is effectivly what they did by standardizing Office Open XML. So if the EU themselves suggest they standardize their own format and they do that exact thing I don’t think it would be logical to join another effort as well. That would surely have been considered an ‘evil’ move.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 7:43 am
Microsoft openly threatens to sue Free software projects; IBM does not and will not. In addition, please see my post from yesterday about Microsoft’s OSP.
You can ask IBM or Sun for the details. I have no time to dig up the proof at the moment (just got some major scoop), but Microsoft was invited to collaborate on ODF.
This is news to me. Please produce proof. “Seem to remember” is not convincing enough…
Lastly, I kindly ask you for your real identity. Otherwise, I may assume you are a Microsoft employee or someone who operates for/on their behalf.
Boycot IBM too said,
October 11, 2008 at 8:17 am
So you have no actual evidence of Microsoft having refused anything but you just claim that they have refused.
I am not working for Microsoft or Novell. I do not want my identity associated with this blog in a search engine either.
I find it strange that you let the IBM patent license which is less free than MS licensing on OOXML pass by without mentioning and that you suggest that MS dominates ISO/IEC whilst IBM and Sun are in completle control of ODF much more than Micrsoft is of OOXML.
OOXML is in international control but ODF is fully under IBM and Sun control.
IBM is actually a party sueing a company, that was opening up the IBM mainframe operating system on other hardware platforms, for intellecual property issues related to IBM patents. This effectivly means no OSS effort can be made to port the IBM mainframe OSS to other platforms like itanium.
Microsoft has never sued any free software project or any project that promotes opening up software.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 8:24 am
To quickly clarify: ODF is not IBM. That’s a Microsoft-imposed lie.
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/06/politicalisation-ms-ibm-iso/
You are trying to drag this discussion to unrelated areas under the false supposition.
How do you (or your employer) relate to them? it’s not actual employment I’m concerned about and since I identify a FUD pattern, I must be apprehensive.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 9:41 am
@AlexH
Funny that Groklaw just pointed out the same thing, adding: “Of course, you have to like working in the dark, so to speak.”
ODF = IBM/Sun said,
October 11, 2008 at 10:33 am
If you identify a FUD patern it must be that you are reading back your blogposting.
It is interesting somebody already mentioned above that you stated in the article
Over half of Norway’s ISO body, Standard Norway, have resigned
whilst actually noone in the national body resigned but only a some members of committee that mostly joined to block ooxml left that commitee after they failed to do so.
Your article is just very poorly researched. And then after people are not disgreeing with your statements you go of and accuse them of being related to Microsoft without any reason whatsoever.
not everyubodsy disagreeing with you is working for Microsoft or in any way related to them. People disagree with you mostly because you try to rewirte reality and at best either misinterprete things or even blatantly lying about things.
You in the article suggest things about the licensing for OOXML but actually the IBM licensing for ODF was actually copied from Microsoft OSP licensing, but where Micrsofts OSP licensing applies to partial implementations of OOXML as well IBM’s ISP pledge has a specific lcause added to that stating it only applies to full implementations of ODF.
Critisising the Microsoft licensing on OOXML meand by definition critisising the IBM Interoperabilite Specification Pledge licensing for ODF as that was almost cloned from Microsoft.
This critisism is especially hurtfull for upcoming ODF v1.2 which will contain a lot of technology that has IP rights on it from IBM/Lotus for spreadsheet. (remember lotus 1-2-3).
There is little doubt that ODF will not pass ISO/IEC unless IBM makes its licensing apply to partial implementations of ODF as well just like Microsofts already does.
I already informed my national body that the IBM licensing only applying to full implementations is unacceptable. I suggest you do thee same if you already have a problem with MS licensing because the IBM license is just worse.
AlexH said,
October 11, 2008 at 10:52 am
@Roy: I prefer to take the messages on the actual OASIS TC as more authoritative than anything you or Groklaw say. You have your agenda; the OASIS TC is pro-OpenDocument.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Don’t rewrite history, please.
http://topicmaps.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/the-norway-vote-what-really-happened/
“There were nearly 30 people present: three employees of Standard Norway (the VP, the committee secretary, and the JTC1 representative); the rest were technical experts. The VP opened by declaring that our only purpose was to discuss the comment responses and decide whether they had been addressed to our satisfaction. If so,”
[...]
“The meeting was a farce and the result was a scandal. But it’s not over yet, and one thing is clear: the “little one” is unfit to represent the interests of Norwegian users.”
Says Steve Pepper.
So who do you work for? You sure seem to have reasons to be hostile towards ODF, stay anonymous, and spread myths that many people won’t bother replying to.
Who Knows said,
October 11, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Your numbers may be right for SC34 but IBM has 58 people spread across 6 working committes for OPEN CSA in OASIS. They are on the Steering Committee and act as Chair for a number of the OPEN CSA Working Committes.
Will you claim foul for their lobbying and monopolizing a standards body to drive their agenda? Right..I didn’t think so.
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I don’t care about IBM, I often criticise them in public (search this site for examples), but backlash against OOXML is not IBM; ODF is not IBM, either. These are lies that are propagated by Microsoft, as I showed here (with peripheral articles) many times before.
Jim B said,
October 12, 2008 at 2:41 am
Interesting that you are obsessed with who peopele are working for. Why ar you suggesting I quote someone that someone from Microsoft is quoting. I actually quoted a member of the orignal Norwegian committee who reacted on the Inquirer article that published the declaration by the norwegian committe members leaving. As someone else stated you are totally obsessed by suggesting that every person not agreeing with you would be working for microsoft.
Seeing the amount of effert you put in anti Microsoft/Novell we should be the ones that wonder who you are working for.
Who is paying your bill, funding you or sponsoring you mr Schestowitz ?
I think it is evident that you can’t do a med study and still be able to be active as you are.
Next to this blog you are also active on digg (6k submitted stories, 13k comment, 15k diggs), and on usenet (and incredible 60k posts there) and what looks like at least 40k other web blogs/posts/comments.
That is about 140,000 pieces of activity on the internet almost all of which are directed against Microsoft and Novell. And to write all those you would have need to read at least a much much higher number of articles and comments by others. Even if you were to write 100 blog posts and reactions a day that would mean 4 years of nearly continuous work.
So I ask you again.
Why are you doing this and who is funding/sponsoring you ?
Usenet search on author Schestowitz: http://groups.google.nl/groups?as_q=&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=schestowitz&lr=&as_qdr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=12&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2008&safe=off
Web search on “by Roy Schestowitz”: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&q=%22by+Roy+Schestowitz%22&btnG=Google+Search
Digg: http://digg.com/users/schestowitz
Roy Schestowitz said,
October 12, 2008 at 2:51 am
No, over 80% of that is GNU/Linux and Free software advocacy.
I’ve finished most of my practical work in early 2006. This is volunteer work and if you read my personal blog, you would know this.