Martin Bryan may not be the only person to raise his arms and give up. Have a look at Ken Holman’s action. [via Andy Updegrove]
Ken Holman, who this week steps down from the role as the international secretary of the ISO subcommittee responsible for the Standard Generalized Markup Language(SGML), gave a briefing on ISO and related matters during the conference’s lightening round sessions Tuesday night.
[...]
Now there is talk of making a fourth working group to handle office documents formats. While now they are usually handled by WG 1 or WG 2, the volume of work required of ODF and OOXML is threatening to overwhelm the members of those groups.
“Is there going to be a WG 4? Stay tuned,” Holman said.
Why is Ken Holman stepping down? Who will have him replaced (or inherit his position)? We have already seen people losing their jobs and possibly being pressured to the point of deciding to quit. Why? Because their stance was problematic to Microsoft, which prefers to set up the game the way that suits it best. In Massachusetts, for example, two CIOs were pressured out of their role only to be replaced by a Microsoft lobbyist.
The big mess continues, with comments like this one arriving just hours ago.
They have also closed the process of allowing NB’s to review “resolved” comments from ECMA and will make sure the NBs will not have adequate time to review proposed changes. It has become a closed process completely..
They can only resort to all type of covert operations and shenanigans because MS knows their format is completely flawed. It depends on all types of proprietary software, impossible to implement, patent incumbent, many language problems and the list can go on and on.
OOXML might be one the worst fiascos known to standards body in recent history. It is, as one reliable source might pus it, “standardisation by corporation”. ISO seems to have officially been hijacked. S-O-S. █
We previously compared the Novell/Microsoft deal to an older (and very similar) deal between Apple and Microsoft. More curiously, there have been smaller patent deals involving Microsoft and Apple since that big one, including this fairly recent one.
Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp.said Thursday they have renewed their font licensing agreement. Financial terms weren’t disclosed. Under the agreement, Apple users will have ongoing use of the latest versions of Microsoft Windows core fonts, the companies said.
In NOOOXML/FFII’s Web site, a caricature was once published which aligned with our view that both Novell and Apple need to support OOXML for financial reasons (dependency on Microsoft leads to proxy strategies. In Apple’s case, it is less obvious (more subtle evidence, i.e. no ‘smoking gun’), but in Novell’s case, all one has to do is look at its SEC filing.
Returning to the issue at hand, there are two new points to be considered, namely:
Is Apple being lured by Microsoft to sustain its notorious (and forgotten) fonts monopoly? Don’t forget Linspire's role, either. By all means, mind the fact that fonts are being negotiated in these patent deals and they remain a barrier, which Novell appears to pass only under Windows, not GNU/Linux (possibly for legal reasons, at Microsoft’s order).
What role do these Apple deals play when it comes to ODF/OOXML, if any at all?
We might just carry on wondering, but all we have is evidence from which unsafe conclusion can be drawn. █
What is sometimes referred to as the Microsoft “talking points” has an impact on OpenDocument format’s reputation and the understanding (or lack thereof) of OOXML. The only way to combat this is by spreading information, not lies (which would be a case of fighting fire with fire). There are thousands of known Microsoft bloggers and even AstroTurfers. It is no secret that while trawling or searching the Web, one is likely to absorb the biased view of people who are paid to deliver their opinion or those with hidden motives (vested interests).
Those who care about free competition and open standards can try to compensate for disinformation merely by blogging. As simple as that may sound, Microsoft’s functional ownership of the media is hard to defeat. The OOXML frauds, for instance, have scarcely been covered in publications with high levels of reach. This alarming knowledge escapes wide circulation which it deserves. Almost nobody wrote about the ISO's own admission that Microsoft had gamed the system and stacked those committees. Microsoft still appears to be working on stacking. It may do this yet again as it prepares for the BRM.
”Microsoft was caught spamming the blackhat way in the past.“Curious minds have wondered how Microsoft manages to manipulate Google PageRank, as well as other types of ranks which increase exposure and traffic. Microsoft was caught spamming the blackhat way in the past. This is clearly proven in numerous SEO forums. There is no question about that. We’re talking about heavy keyword stuffing and doorway pages that justify an immediate ban from most search engines. Microsoft still does that. It has no guilt as is frequently resorts to such tactics, protected by ego, arrogance and endless vanity. It’s the benevolent emperor in its own eyes, so its self-glorifying message must cancel or supersede all else.
Here are some of the latest incidents that show Microsoft’s selfish behaviour on the Web:
In a blog post, Compete analyst Steve Willis attributed Microsoft’s search gains to prizes awarded to users participating in Live Search Club, which features games that post queries to Microsoft’s search engine.
[...]
“Microsoft is essentially being DDoSed by thousands of people hundreds of times per minute, but they are mistaking this rise in traffic for people actually using Live Search.”
People were using the macro on more than 3 games at a time, on more than 2 accounts at a time, why Microsoft didn’t pick up on the fact that in the first few days some people had accumulated enough for 3 Zunes each is beyond us. Some were lucky, others, not so much.
[...]
So far no one has been banned from using their accounts, which they needed to sign up, probably because they did not break any laws, or probably because Microsoft didn’t want that hassle and liked their new found traffic.
Dear reader, please tell me: what do you think of a search engine that steals (bandwidth and AdSense revenue), lies, spams away, and is not clever enough to stop their criminal activities when they’re caught?
Recently a Live Search rep whined in an interview because so many robots.txt files out there block their crawler…
Our site happens to be among the sufferers and victims of this activity, with many hundreds of empty requests per day, all of which come from Microsoft.
The world is probably very fortunate not to have Microsoft as the ‘key holder’ of the Web’s major gateway and hub. That would arguably be Google. Despite all of this manipulation, however, Microsoft continues to lose market share (while Google is gaining some).
Yahoo sites had 22.9 percent of the U.S. market, a 0.8 percentage-point fall from September. Microsoft slipped to 9.7 percent from 10.3 percent, Ask was flat at 4.7 percent and Time Warner’s network dipped 0.1 percentage point to 4.2 percent.
The problem of media control and informational ownership isn’t exclusive to technology. It’s an issue that is widely accounted for and represented in a political context as well. Consider the video below.
Here is the video’s enclosed description.
Political caroling against media concentration.
Stop the FCC’s holiday giveaway to Big Media. Kevin Martin, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has been keeping a secret from the American people. He wants to push through plans to remove decades-old media ownership protections. And he’s trying to do it without public scrutiny. No FCC broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership waivers for the Tribune Company.
Let us learn from the observations above that when people look for information on a particular topic, they are quite likely to be exposed to a point of view which represent those are wealthy and those who guiltlessly game the system.
If I recall this correctly, I suspect it was a certain propaganda minister who once said something along the lines of “when you control information, you control the minds”. Microsoft has always understood that. In fact, Gates has persistently called Microsoft to take bloggers seriously and sway them Microsoft’s way (another advice from Gates was to “keep your enemies closer”). I am still hearing from friends who run Linux Web sites and get generous invitations from Microsoft (last heard just days ago). There is nothing new under the Sun. Just watch Rick and others whose services Microsoft bought (e.g. to edit Wikipedia on topics like OOXML). Twofoundations boggle the mind also. █
Noooxml.org has just grouped together some thoughts and a summary from Groklaw. These show how serious a consideration patents must be when it comes to using or implementing OOMXL. From this detailed overview:
Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical and editorial issues would get resolved.
[...]
When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it, the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license it.
You are also encouraged to watch the following video presentation which highlights a few of the key issues, including the one cited above.
When watching this, remember that only Microsoft seems to be involved in preparing OOXML. This fails to address and even contradicts the requirements of open standards. Also, publicly available information is needed for scrutiny, but ECMA and Microsoft use passwords as barriers.
Other points which the speaker raises are non-discriminatory and fair conditions in implementation of standards. They facilitate real competition and choice, which makes better products and reduces cost. These are just the classical and usual arguments for real open standards. For those in search of a primer, the video might prove handy. █
Any profound technical assessment of competing products is likely to end up considering factors like marketing, competitive/anticompetitive tricks, and even lobbying. Nowadays, it takes more than good (even superior) products to win. Just consider astroturfing which Microsoft used to defeat OS/2.
”Today we turn our attention to another scandalous set of cases where another regulatory body fails to do its vital job.”In an engineering world, from an entirely pragmatic point-of-view one can drift towards (and be distracted by) companies. Therein, certain behaviours ascend to another level, which is politicians.
A case that was brought to the news a few days ago might be that last straw which breaks the camel’s back. There is some exemplary evidence that shows the role of inter-personal relationships. In other words, companies can have insiders in government, which in turn enables them to act viciously without proper scrutiny. The watchdogs are asleep by choice. Blame nepotism, favouritism, or just favours (strategic charity, financial incentives, et cetera).
This time, as usual, it is Deborah Platt Majoras that makes the headlines (mind the fact the many of the links below have expired or will have expired by next week, but articles are quoted verbatim and are no older than one year).
The Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy said in a petition Wednesday that Majoras’ husband, John M. Majoras, is a partner at the Jones Day law firm.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras is consulting with the agency’s ethics officer to see if she should recuse herself from a review of Google’s planned acquisition of online ad network DoubleClick.
Antitrust regulators with the Federal Trade Commission have received an extension to review the controversial $3.1 billion Google-DoubleClick megamerger, according to sources.
It is worth adding that Microsoft is the key driver for scrutiny here. Microsoft was caught lobbying in the press, the activist and the political level in order to put this merger under great pressure. Hypocrisy knows no bounds because Microsoft was both willing and prepared to pay twice as much for the same company. It got rejected by DoubleClick investors, so envy and arrogance ought to be considered as possible explanations.
This brings back memories of the blind eye that was turned to Intel just a couple of months ago, despite the decision made in other courts around the world.
South Korea began investigating Intel’s marketing and rebate practices for computer processors two years ago after similar probes by Japan and the European Union.
Although neither Intel nor the KFTC provided details on the findings, sources told the Korea Times said that the antitrust regulators did plan to impose penalties on the chipmaker. “The FTC gained some evidence backing up suspicions that Intel has offered discounts to computer makers in exchange for sealing exclusive deals, and coerced dealers not to buy products from rivals such as Advanced Micro Devices (AMD),” said one source.
South Korean media have reported the inquiry has centered on allegations Intel abused its market dominance by pressuring computer makers to avoid using chips made by Intel’s rivals.
FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras, a Republican, has rejected requests by lawmakers, other commissioners and Advanced Micro Devices Inc to open a formal antitrust investigation into its much larger rival Intel, the New York Times reported on Monday.
The New York Times reported on Monday that FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras has rejected requests to escalate at informal review into a formal investigation, citing unnamed government officials and lawyers involved in the matter.
Intel, the world’s biggest maker of computer chips, has been cited for anti-competitive behavior for allegedly offering large discounts to computer makers in exchange for their not using products from AMD, the paper said.
Those faulting Intel include regulators with the European Commission and Korea, the Times said. Japanese officials also made similar accusations in 2005, it said. Intel controls some 80 percent to 90 percent of the microchip market, it said.
On the same note, when Intel came under fire for a questionable acquisition, Intel did not require much effort to escape an iron fist.
It is not common for the Federal Trade Commission, which issued a second request for information to Intel last week, to ask for more information on such mergers.
Other watchdogs have been frustrated with the FTC’s decisions. Consider this one:
The American Antitrust Institute (AAI), a Washington DC lobby group, has written an open letter to the Federal Trade Commission urging an investigation of Intel’s allegedly monopolistic business practices.
[...]
AAI say its insistence of an investigation is based on allegations by AMD in a private case and information obtained by the EC’s complaint, which have not been made public
How is it all possible? Well, in the past we showed financial links between Microsoft and politicians, so the DoJ. Nepotism was hardly a surprise. We have also listed Intel’s abuses against AMD and others (partial list here), but where does Intel get all that power from? In particular, how is Intel able to dodge such investigations? Lobbying might be the answer, so here are some articles to consider:
This seems like a normal type of practice, which it should not be. People who are paid to rewrite laws and pressure for political change ruin the spirit of democracy. When it comes to lobbying, the law requires only disclosures, yet does not forbid the activity as a whole. Another example from the beginning of the year:
Micron Technology Inc., on Thursday said it has opened a government affairs office in Washington to lead the computer memory maker’s lobbying efforts on patent reform, international trade, research funding and other issues.
[...]
Carroll, 33, worked for the last six years as trade policy director for semiconductor maker Intel Corp., which she joined in 1998 as European government affairs policy manager based in Brussels, Belgium.
Of course, a company like Intel can always use the same excuses as Microsoft, claiming that it merely ‘innovates’ and the whole world is against it for no apparent reason. Case of point:
Still, he sighed, the worst case scenario is that he might have to write a cheque, even if fines in the current case could be as high as $3.2 billion
The EU may indeed be anti-America, but only is “anti-America” means “against kickbacks”.
The bottom line of this post ought to say that the FTC is a lost cause, so any time it’s mentioned in the context of large monopolistic companies, it ought to be questioned or dismissed promptly. The same goes for the DoJ, but not the AAI. In the context of formats, ECMA is still seen as somewhat a marketing puppet (pay to play), whereas ISO paints itself as a victim which nevertheless lost its spine (and thus its credibility). █
Update: going further off topic, the Department of Justice has had other serious issues relating to trust. It goes only several months back. The recent Department of Justice scandal is depicted here.
Microsoft may have lost in court, but it quickly tried to win the war of media reaction via organisations like CompTIA, the Computing Technology Industry Association and ACT (the Association for Competitive Technology) which both intervened in court on its side.
E-mails released by the committee show that Abramoff, often with the knowledge of the groups’ leaders, exploited the tax-exempt status and leveraged the stature of the organizations to build support among conservatives for legislation or government action sought by clients including Microsoft Corp., mutual fund company DH2 Inc., Primedia Inc.’s Channel One Network, and Brown-Forman, maker of Jack Daniel’s whiskey.
Microsoft took first place with $651,100 given out, while Hewlett-Packard gave only $185,550, and Gateway gave a paltry $2,000. Microsoft’s donations certainly illustrate well the true size of the company and the extent of its political concerns.
Nearly a decade after the government began its landmark effort to break up Microsoft, the Bush administration has sharply changed course by repeatedly defending the company both in the United States and abroad against accusations of anticompetitive conduct, including the recent rejection of a complaint by Google.
[...]
In the most striking recent example of the policy shift, the top antitrust official at the Justice Department last month urged state prosecutors to reject a confidential antitrust complaint filed by Google that is tied to a consent decree that monitors Microsoft’s behavior. Google has accused Microsoft of designing its latest operating system, Vista, to discourage the use of Google’s desktop search program, lawyers involved in the case said.
Yet governments continue to push ahead with this idiot idea — both Britain and Japan for example are considering extending existing terms. Why?
The answer is a kind of corruption of the political process. Or better, a “corruption” of the political process. I don’t mean corruption in the simple sense of bribery. I mean “corruption” in the sense that the system is so queered by the influence of money that it can’t even get an issue as simple and clear as term extension right.
Call it a mouthpiece, a code monkey, a puppet, a lapdog, a shill, or a marionette. Terminology does matter much. Some of the things Novell is doing at the moment are directly or indirectly affected by Microsoft’s own ambitions and we have provided many examples which prove this over the past year. There is even this old image that illustrates the relationship between Novell and its major funding source.
Some degree of manipulation comes from Novell’s acquisition of Ximian, which Stafford Masie described not as “red carpet”, but as something else. Masie was Novell’s South Africa Country Manager before escaping to Google. Here are portions of what he said (extracted from a transcript Shane provided):
Y’know why we bought Ximian? Does anyone know why we bought Ximian? Because they had cool software? No. We didn’t buy Ximian because of their Red Carpet software, we didn’t buy Ximian because of… the collaboration technologies that they had, we didn’t buy them for the desktop technologies that they had, we bought Ximian for one reason: we wanted people that were community heads, people that understood this community organically, that was extremely well respected, people like Nat Friedman and Miguel De Icaza, we wanted them within Novell.
[...]
And, I think the Microsfot thing came from that, it came from that, and I will lead into that in a second, so Ximian- the people, then we bought SUSE, now we bought SUSE because of the direction that was given to us by people within the company that truly understood the Linux community, and I think we’ve demonstrated our willingness, I think we’ve demonstrated our commitment, i think we’ve demonstrated… our investment that we are willing to make into the community and be a responsible member of it.
And, this morning, I’m just going to go through some of the things regarding the Microsoft agreement, this morning I want to make sure that we give proper time to discuss the software patent issue, that Derek surfaced. I think its a very prominent issue, and I think this is one of the benefits of this Microsoft agreement.
It’s rather ironic that we find a Ximian marionette right there in YouTube. It’s not a coincidence, but Ximian may represent a point in time when Novell began looking at another programming universe — one that it barely controls. █
Some people believe that this Web site spreads FUD that negatively affects the Linux community as a whole, but let’s clarify a few things again. This isn’t a case of stubborn bashing du jour. I’ve advocated Free software for quite some time. I’ve spent sleepless night due to sheer dedication to Free software passions. That was before the Novell deal. Things have changed as new risks were born though.
”Give it some more months to ‘cook’, so to speak. It’s a timebomb. “If Novell-type deals were not a big danger to Free software and GNU/Linux, I would not stay up all night writing something that essentially criticises a Linux company and creates so much backlash against me. Did you know that I was running SUSE at home and at work exclusively before the deal? Trust me, If you look deep at these deals and know the situation intimately, then you find an SCO-to-be in your hands. Give it some more months to ‘cook’, so to speak. It’s a timebomb.
Companies that signed deals with Microsoft were doing bad financially (even Novell had trouble with Fargo Bank just before signing the patent deal). They needed a warm shoulder to lean on. When they run low on funds, they’ll become what one person called “a new shill” (just like SCO). He said that on November 4th, 2006.
One source says tells us that it holds Justin Steinman personally responsible for a lot of the damage to Novell, but the source is not aware of his involvements before the Novell/Microsoft negotiations began. There were some hints about this in a podcast from Dan Bricklin. Speaking of Dan Bricklin, in his approach towards the Groklaw community, reasons were given why Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza should not take much blame (contrast to what was suspected elsewhere).
As for the present and future. I’ve been collecting a lot of inside information about Novell recently. It’s damaging. Some of it I cannot publish safely (well, not yet anyway). The information is not a case of bashing or humiliation; rather, it’s a case of disgusting marketing technique where Novell uses fear as a marketing tool. Microsoft and Novell are actually much closer than people imagine. █
Send this to a friend 
What is sometimes referred to as the Microsoft “talking points” has an impact on OpenDocument format’s reputation and the understanding (or lack thereof) of OOXML. The only way to combat this is by spreading information, not lies (which would be a case of fighting fire with fire). There are thousands of known Microsoft bloggers and 
When watching this, remember that only Microsoft seems to be involved in preparing OOXML. This fails to address and even contradicts the requirements of open standards. Also, publicly available information is needed for scrutiny, but ECMA and Microsoft 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA