Day three of the ridiculous BRM in Geneva [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] will begin in a couple of hours. We carry on bringing back memories of Microsoft's fight for OOXML. This third post among a series looks how Microsoft bullied (yes, quite practically bullied) States CIO and even diplomats in order to stifle the adoption of ODF in the United States.
Here is only a small portion of a very lengthy post (copied verbatim):
Those of you have followed the developments in the world of document formats probably come across plenty of corruption. The funny OOXML game continues to this date. Massachusetts is no exception and it is probably one among the first places from which ‘funny’ stories arrived. Let’s remind ourselves of the ‘Greatest Hits’ from the State of Massachusetts.
Almost to a person, to anybody involved or who knows about the ODF issue, they attributed the story to Microsoft, right, wrong or otherwise. Senator Pacheco may be a bully but I do not believe he is disingenious and would stoop to such a tactic. Senator Pacheco and Secretary Galvin’s office remain very heavily influenced by the Microsoft money and its lobbyist machine, as witnessed by their playbook and words, in my opinion.
Here is his successor, who held a similar position and stance that defends the interests of the citizens, not the cashflow of a convicted monopoly abuser.
As CIO of Massachusetts from February to November last year, Louis Gutierrez had to endure most of the brunt of Microsoft Corp.’s political wrath over a state policy calling for the adoption of the Open Document Format for Office Applications, or ODF — a rival to the software vendor’s Office Open XML file format.
To Microsoft, his departure was a sweet victory. Two CIOs then had their influence inherited by a Microsoft lobbyist. Microsoft essentially took control of the state.
That person is Brian Burke, the Microsoft Regional Director for Public Affairs, and if that surprises you, it surprises me as well, given the degree of acrimonious debate and disinformation witnessed in Massachusetts over the last 15 months involving the Information Technology Division’s transition to ODF.
If you think that’s bad, check out what they did in Florida.
It was just a bit of text advocating open data formats that was slipped into a Florida State Senate bill at the last minute with no fanfare, but within 24 hours three Microsoft-paid lobbyists, all wearing black suits, were pressuring members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Operations (COGO) to remove the words they didn’t like from Senate bill 1974.
Delegates at Geneva will hopefully be fully aware of these stories. This is what they vote on. █
Microsoft’s IBM-isation is closer than you might realise
For a fact, Microsoft might soon enter debt and we have been studying for quite some time the true story behind Microsoft’s PR and accounting walls. Not so long ago we returned our attention to the issue of misconduct, including systematic kickbacks. There is more to bribery then just kickbacks, which themselves as a subtle form of bribery more severe than lobbying, which is legalised to a greater or lesser degree.
Reuters has just published an article about the government’s new and more aggressive effort to curb briberies. Here is the opening portion of an article you might find surprising (witness the true scale of corruption):
Companies under investigation for violations of U.S. bribery laws will likely face heightened scrutiny from law enforcement officials all over the world as probes widen and spill across borders, a study found.
Yesterday, having taken a look at Microsoft’s SEC filing, Groklaw brought attention to the following article titled “Debt in Disguise” and we shall return to this in a moment.
The purpose of securitization is to make the credit rating of the company practically irrelevant in a financing, so that even in a bankruptcy the receivables cash flow will be protected….
The rating agencies also rely greatly on legal constructs that say the payment stream to investors will not be hindered. For instance, the transfer of receivables to the SPE must be a “true sale.” That is, the seller must not retain too much of the reward or the risk coming from the asset, says Robert Hahn, a partner with Hunton & Williams LLP. In addition, the SPE has to be “nonrecourse” — in other words, the company’s creditors must not have claim to the assets of the SPE if the originating company goes bankrupt.
“Securitization divorces the creditworthiness of the [company] from the credit of the pool,” says Mark Spradling, a partner with Vinson & Elkings LLP. “True sale and nonconsolidation are part of that separation.”
But the opinion that legal control of receivables has passed to a third party has not been litigated in the bankruptcy courts….
Tapping the capital markets without a lending bank in between means that even non-investment-grade companies can finance at near what triple-A companies pay.
From the latest SEC filing, the portion of interest was this. Read it very carefully.
Antitrust, unfair competition, and overcharge class actions. A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits have been filed against us in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products. We obtained dismissals of damages claims of indirect purchasers under federal law and in 15 states. Courts refused to certify classes in two additional states. We have reached agreements to settle all claims that have been made to date in 19 states….
Other antitrust litigation and claims. In November 2004, Novell, Inc. filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Utah, now consolidated with other cases in Maryland, asserting antitrust and unfair competition claims against us related to Novell’s ownership of WordPerfect and other productivity applications during the period between June 1994 and March 1996. …
Patent and intellectual property claims. We are vigorously defending more than 45 patent infringement cases. …
Adverse outcomes in some or all of the matters described in this section may result in significant monetary damages or injunctive relief against us that would adversely affect distribution of our operating system or application products. We may enter into material settlements because of these risks. …
As of December 31, 2007, we had accrued aggregate liabilities of approximately $840 million in other current liabilities and approximately $660 million in other long-term liabilities for all of the contingent matters described in this note. While we intend to vigorously defend these matters, there exists the possibility of adverse outcomes that we estimate could be up to $4.1 billion in aggregate beyond recorded amounts. Were unfavorable final outcomes to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our financial position and on the results of operations for the period in which the effects become reasonably estimable.
If you don’t believe me, take a look at what’s happening out there. Linux is cutting into Microsoft’s desktop dominance. It’s also wiping away any hope of it gaining server dominance. Firefox is quickly replacing its browser as the preferred method for surfing the internet. Outlook is being slowly knocked off its pedestal by open source alternatives, and other competitors are attacking them from all sides in their other fields as well. Open Source is on a roll and Microsoft is getting run over on all sides, and while it may not seem like they’re loosing the war, they are. Just because Open Source isn’t in the mainstream news doesn’t mean it’s not winning. And if this isn’t causing Microsoft and Steve Balmer to reach the point of being nearly panic stricken, then I’m a monkey’s uncle. I honestly believe right now that they’re terrified. Hence the battle for Yahoo is a battle for their very existence.
The word “terrified” is the same one that we used a week ago. The taxoperability program was a desperate attempt to escape the Big Fine which is yet to be announced (c/f aforementioned hyperlink). It was an attempt to please the EU while securing some revenue (‘software patent tax’). Without the EU’s nod of approval, will Microsoft gradually go into debt? How does Yahoo fit into this and are OOXML, Silverlight and other anti-LAMP/standards technologies merely a desperate late attempt?
There has been a lot of discussion recently due to the case which revolves around business methods. There is hope is that a responsible reform addressing the issue will knock down software patents as well. Have a look at this new article from BusinessWeek.
A case before an appeals court could make it harder to win legal protection for business methods
Successful free enterprise requires an effective system of property ownership rights. Economists like Hernando de Soto believe that such rights are the underpinning of capitalism and explain how for decades America’s strong patent system has fostered economic growth and innovation in the face of intensifying international competition. Although many factory jobs have moved overseas, knowledge workers have enjoyed improved living standards in the United States.
That picture will change for the worse if the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S.1145), now being considered by the Senate, is enacted in its present form. This bill, together with two recent patent-unfriendly Supreme Court rulings, represents one of the worst assaults on intellectual property protection in the 218-year history of our patent system.
[...]
Joe Kiani is the founder and CEO of Irvine, Calif.-based Masimo.
For another more visual perspective (a video), there is this recent one. The “knowledge worker” monopoly is spurring great debate. When it crosses over to software, this means that people in poorer nations are hardly allow to program (or distribute their programs). What’s next? Will people not be permitted to practice mathematics, turning it into a luxury of only the affluent?
Thanks to Gillette, the idea that you can make money by giving something away is no longer radical. But until recently, practically everything “free” was really just the result of what economists would call a cross-subsidy: You’d get one thing free if you bought another, or you’d get a product free only if you paid for a service.
Over the past decade, however, a different sort of free has emerged. The new model is based not on cross-subsidies — the shifting of costs from one product to another — but on the fact that the cost of products themselves is falling fast.
When all else fails, litigate?
Acacia Carries on Trolling with Junk Patents
Acacia, with roots in Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], shows us that its trolling continues, uninterrupted. Watch this recent Acacia settlement (read: ripoff) [Kudos to Doug Mentohl for the links]
Acacia Research Corporation ACTG announced today that its Mobile Traffic Systems Corporation subsidiary has settled patent litigation against Cobra Electronics Corporation that was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
The licensed technology generally relates to systems and methods for transmitting, receiving and displaying traffic information on portable handheld and mobile devices. This technology is used to identify traffic congestion and can be used with in-vehicle navigation displays and portable handheld units such as cell phones and PDAs.
There is a bunch of reports out there about Linus Torvalds cautiously welcoming Microsoft’s Taxoperability Program, but there is the possibility that he misses a broader picture. To repeat a response to Asay from yesterday, consider the following comment from Michael Tiemann, President of the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
In my opinion, anything that Microsoft does that falls short of the published open source minimums is…sub-minimal. Torvalds is happy because his standards are lower–he cares more about himself than his community. But other people have higher standards–we also care about the community at least as much as we care for ourselves.
The words here are a little strong and Tiemann, who is most notably behind “Open Source”, seems to be embracing a Richard Stallman-like (GNU/FSF) stance, caring to ensure that software remains free and secure from software patents.
[PJ: Microsoft has come up with its own proprietary definition, if I may call it that, of Open Source projects. Here it is, found on the new Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers page of its website:
"To benefit from this promise, You must be a natural or legal person participating in the creation of software code for an open source project. An "open source project" is a software development project the resulting source code of which is freely distributed, modified, or copied pursuant to an open source license and is not commercially distributed by its participants. If You engage in the commercial distribution or importation of software derived from an open source project or if You make or use such software outside the scope of creating such software code, You do not benefit from this promise for such distribution or for these other activities."
here is a lot of discussion around the new Microsoft premise to offer freely documentation about its protocols and interfaces, and to not sue developers who use it to create code for non-commercial goals, even if they violate Microsoft patents. Some people think that this is done to avoid further pressure from the European Commission. It could be so – but there could be also a different rationale for it.
[...]
I would. Fair is fair… If only it wasn’t for one small detail: this way, they destroy the FOSS essence. Every FOSS license gives you the right to use and distribute the software in any way you like, commercial or not. If you are limited to non-commercial distribution only, this is not freedom anymore. And this is going to damage the positions of FOSS not only among the freedom pundits, but also (and maybe even more) among the ordinary users. That is – to marginalize FOSS.
It is possible that Linus Torvalds has not learned the full extent of Microsoft’s latest announcement. His response to this might be damaging to perception. Neither Red Hat nor the EU cared for Microsoft's promise, so why should the Linux kernel? █
When everyone hates OOXML, it’s time to rethink OOXML
For those who do not know Ghosh, this man is responsible for a highly-cited study on the potential and value of growth through FOSS in Europe. He is well regarded in this field and Reuters quotes his stance in this new article covering OOXML.
“Microsoft could easily provide full support for ODF,” said Rishab Ghosh, senior researcher at the United Nations University in Maastricht.
Ghosh said Microsoft’s drive for a competing standard was part of its broader strategy to encourage consumers to use only Microsoft products, as has been alleged in anti-trust cases in Europe and elsewhere.
The man who said that Microsoft would inevitably support ODF (he said this about half a year ago) comments further.
Microsoft is an adjudicated monopoly in the United States. The EU continues to investigate possible abuse of their market dominance. (Market leadership and innovation are not what’s being punished, but rather the abuse of a dominant position.) Microsoft can complain all they want, but the practices that enabled their success continue to plague them. We cannot collectively rewrite history. Microsoft is indeed held to a different measure. They have forfeited some of the freedoms that other companies enjoy. In many ways, they have lost our trust.
One can not judge Microsoft’s newly declared preference for “openness” against the work they’ve done promoting their own product specification, but against their continued refusal to adopt ODF. In the end, OOXML as an ISO standard (with its attendant market confusion) will best serve the needs of Microsoft over its customers, and that’s a shame.
On numerous occasions before, Google openly expressed its objections to OOXML. Here is Google doing it again — quite strategically in fact — at the very same time as the BRM, which is a farce anyway [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
Currently, the technology industry is evaluating a proposed ISO standard for document formats. Given the importance of a workable standard, Microsoft’s submission of Office Open XML (OOXML ) as an additional international standard has caught the attention of many. In September 2007, the original request to ISO was defeated. After further technical analysis of the specification along with all the additional data available on OOXML, Google believes OOXML would be an insufficient and unnecessary standard, designed purely around the needs of Microsoft Office.
I’m speaking in Geneva this morning at the Open Forum Europe Conference “Standards and the Future of the Internet.” Here are the slides I’m using: “Raising the Quality Threshold of Standards Development” in PDF format.
Despite the secrecy of the BRM in Geneva, quite a lot is happening and the press remains very active. Everyone seems to hate OOXML, except Microsoft and its business partners, of course. █
Australia’s standards body has been accused of sending an inappropriate, though well qualified, delegate to a crucial international ballot on a controversial move by Microsoft to make its Office documents a world standard.
One industry figure says the move has left Australia looking like a “banana republic”.
Philippines
For information about prior incidents in the Philippines, start here and follow the links forward and backward in time. We have accumulated a good deal of incidents.
Earlier, Microsoft had flown foreign journalists—including staff members from two local newspapers (not Standard Today)—all the way to Redmond, to pitch OOXML.
I drew some belated attention from the local Microsoft office when I questioned the wisdom of using OOXML as an international standard earlier this month. They didn’t fly me to Redmond, but they did want to meet me so they could air their side.
I proposed they type out their response, instead—which they did. In the spirit of fairness, I am reproducing their arguments here, edited for clarity and brevity. My comments follow in italics.
Going back to Australia, here is an example from the Australian press where you can see Microsoft twisting the arms of journalists for favourable coverage.
“Microsoft expressed disappointment at our views and said “a better story” would have been the positive benefits OpenXML…”
This was far from the first time that they are caught twisting journalists’ arms. Mind our past writings about Microsoft bribing journalists in exchange for good publicity. it’s an obnoxious phenomenon which deserves to receive wider publicity. █
It continues to amaze that a panel supposedly deciding on openness is actually a secret [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It never ceases to amaze that even a lawsuit can be brought against attendants if they speak out. What is this, Alcatraz?
Yes, we have been told not to broadcast the specifics of the BRM. Additionally we will be sued if we take and publish any pictures of certain delegates. It seems Switzerland has some super privacy laws. I guess thats why Swiss Banks are so popular.
I happen to be communicating with someone who attends the BRM and writes about it in USENET, but he stubbornly believes that OOXML is okay (and even expresses this conviction against a single real standard in a newsgroup focused on Linux). He refuses to speak out about the BRM, but still, why must it be a sin? Moreover, why are Microsoft lobbyists allowed to secretly infiltrate Geneva and do their thing? Is ECMA (Microsoft) trying to shut out opposition while at the same time its employees are running up and down Geneva, as well as meeting the delegates between sessions? This is astounding.
I know that many delegations are under specific guidance to not blog or discuss outside of the meetings. The BRM process was designed to promote the improvement of specifications, not to tear them down. I think this is a very important point to keep in mind throughout the week….
“Analysts sell out – that’s their business model… But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.”
Rob Enderle, an analyst and founder of the Enderle Group, said Monday that… But IDC analyst Al Gillen, an expert in operating systems, said that…
The headline is telling: “Planned investor [in SCO] hopes to settle suits”
But settle what case? SCO has no case, but its actions may serve other companies. That’s just the heart of the problem. After over 4 years they failed to prove that they have a case. Mind the people whom the author approaches for comment. Enderle and Gillen both receive money from Microsoft.
Al Gillen is very close to Microsoft and it’s not the first time he deceives (even against Linux) in the press. Watch the citations to see how such deception gets ‘cooked’, through ‘studies’ that are biased by design (the methodology).
As for Enderle, where does one even start? He receives money from Microsoft (the company is listed among his customers) and he is said to have been embargoed from some publications after repeated complaints.
Send this to a friend 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA