Slashdot Mirror

It can get a lot worse. Rambus joined JEDEC - a consortium of memory manufacturers set up so everyone could cooperate in creating a high-performance low-cost standard. They took ideas that were being discussed by other memory manufacturers for DDR memory and secretly patented them, then sued the other memory manufacturers for patent violation. The JEDEC rules expressly prohibited patenting technologies being discussed by consortium members, but crucially did not specify penalties for someone breaking those rules. Consequently the only recourse JEDEC had was kick Rambus out. Their patents based on stealing other people's ideas were still legally valid. This is why everyone hates Rambus.

Even if you did have backups how could you even begin to know which saveset to restore from? You could have been backing up a corrupted file for a lo-o-ong time.

Friends wonder why I still purchase physical books and CDs. This is why. I'll have to come up with a simple 2-3 sentence explanation of the problem the OP was describing for when they ask next time. I've had MP3 files made from my CD collection mysteriously become corrupted over time. No problem, I can just re-rip/convert/etc. but losing the original digital version of your newborn would be heartbreaking. Make several copies to reduce the odds of losing it. Make a good print using archival paper and inks and keep in away from light in a safe deposit box so it could be rescanned should the digital file become corrupted. Of course, one can go overboard as not every photo is worth that kind of effort but it appears we might be starting to see, first-hand, the problems described in Bergeron's "Dark Ages II". Even worse what if this were to happen? (So don't even bring up the "cloud", OK?)

Completely undermining.

Shachar

I like Romney for requiring OpenDocument format (ODF) when he was governor of Mass.

Um, you lost me here, why would a greedy venture capitalist give a flying fuck about open-source software? I just did a google search and found nothing relating to WTF you just said, or are you just a Romney-troll in disguise? In that case, you still aren't changing my vote, the O's are in for FOUR MORE YEARS bitch.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060313100529485&mode=print

Next time, try using a search engine instead of a fucking ad engine, dipshit.

The nightmare wrt google docs is writing a doc in word, passing it to google docs for somebody's editing,

That's the nightmare for ANYONE trying to inter-operate with Microsoft.

And since it's the result of deliberate efforts by Microsoft to fight open standards, it should result in them being banned from government tenders.

http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/index.php?topic=20051116124417686
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/1how-microsoft-fought-true-open-standards-i/index.htm

You are right, TFA did say the appellate court affirmed the lower court decision. I missed that. However, in an earlier blog post the same author said the appeals court overturned it. I think he forgot which way the lower court initially ruled. I admit that's sloppy. He definitely is an attorney, though, for what that's worth.

Microsoft cares:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/09/0324247

http://consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/pdf/aug04/trends.pdf

People do care.

For some good ideas to start with, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_adoption and then head over to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts links. You can glean a lot of the policy formulation ides from there. They built a requirement to use open document format (not necessarily open source). http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/ is another good resource to start with.

I'm in the real world, where I didn't say anything about PJ not being level-headed or insightful in absolute terms. I just said that Andy Updegrove is a bit more so. That was in the context of document standards, of course. That is much more his area of expertise than it is PJ's.

PJ was very level-headed and insightful when the subject was SCO's lawsuits. Her background was very relevant then. On subjects that don't have much to do with lawsuits or the GPL (e.g., OOXML) she often doesn't do as well.

To see what I mean, compare how PJ and Andy blogged about UOF when they first heard about it:

• Andy's blog
• Groklaw

PJ was already declaring victory for ODF in 2006 (before OOXML even got to ISO/IEC) just because UOF existed and there was some people were interested in harmonizing UOF and ODF! If that doomed OOXML, what has all of the fuss in the last couple of years been about then?

Andy is a lawyer and mostly a big picture guy. If you want more technical details, you might want to check out some other blogs, such as Rob Weir's that talk about ODF, OOXML and so on. Rob is a co-chair of the OASIS ODF technical committee, so he knows what he's talking about. As a paralegal turned journalist, PJ just doesn't have the kind of background that bloggers like Rob and Andy have.

Andy Updegrove does, too. As usual, he's a bit more level-headed and insightful than PJ.

> What is needed in the JavaScript world is not more
> features, but more consistency of implementation
> across the various browsers.

While I agree with you about the need for greater consistency of implementation, I don't expect that will ever happen. Microsoft does not want that to happen; and will do all it can to prevent cross-platform and cross-browser adherence to agreed standards where those standards will reduce its monopoly position - even to the extent of hijacking standardisation processes.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/index.php?topic=20071125145019553

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/index.php?topic=20051116124417686

> What is needed in the JavaScript world is not more
> features, but more consistency of implementation
> across the various browsers.

While I agree with you about the need for greater consistency of implementation, I don't expect that will ever happen. Microsoft does not want that to happen; and will do all it can to prevent cross-platform and cross-browser adherence to agreed standards where those standards will reduce its monopoly position - even to the extent of hijacking standardisation processes.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/index.php?topic=20071125145019553

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/index.php?topic=20051116124417686

News feeds:

IE Blog - for keeping track of what MS is up to on the browser front
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/atom.xml

Standards Blog - not as many posts now days, was very important during the height of the ooxml/odf war
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/backend/geeklog.rss

I keep OSNews for completeness, but it is pretty useless - software news
http://osnews.com/files/recent.xml

Anandtech - hardware news and reviews
http://www.anandtech.com/rss/articlefeed.aspx

Ars Technica - tech news and commentary
http://arstechnica.com/index.rssx

Phoronix - linux graphics news and info
http://www.phoronix.com/rss.php

Linux Weekly News
http://lwn.net/headlines/rss

KDE announcements
http://www.kde.org/dotkdeorg.rdf

Open Source Software Planets:

http://planet.debian.org/rss20.xml

http://planet.fedoraproject.org/atom.xml

http://planet.ubuntu.com/rss20.xml

http://planet.gnome.org/atom.xml

http://planetkde.org/rss20.xml

http://planet.freedesktop.org/rss20.xml

http://planet.mozilla.org/atom.xml

http://planet.jabber.org/atom.xml

mostly software releases and XEP updates
http://planet.jabber.org/news/atom.xml

http://maemo.org/news/planet-maemo/atom.xml

environment feeds:

Good Pacific Northwest environmental news
http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/rss

Best environmental news and discussion on the web
http://www.worldchanging.com/index.xml

I keep Treehugger for completeness, but I mark 90% of their posts as read without looking at them.
Really too "light green/consumer green" for me
http://www.treehugger.com/index.xml

other feeds:

Dive into Mark - not what once was, but good enough to keep around
http://diveintomark.org/feed/

Loooong posts on software
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/atom.xml

Bruce Scheier knows Alice and Bob's shared secret
http://www.schneier.com/blog/index.rdf

The intersection of Science (especially Evolution), Liberalism, Atheism, and Squid
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/index.xml

"Your comment has too few characters per line" - what a load of bull. Taco, I know this and the timer are supposed to cut down on spam, but I think they annoy legitimate posters more than they reduce spam. You should really reconsider these "features".

Andy Updegrove says a fourth country may also have appealed.

You're probably right that it was wrong when it was written, but it's correct now because they've finally, actually appealed instead of just protesting:

Source:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080529202924937
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080529150227123

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

You are right!
Fortunately, as I wrote TFA's author requesting to see ABNT's letter anyway, I was surprised to know that ABNT actually submitted an appeal to ISO. (Which the author himself didn't knew up to the time of blogging).

ABNT's full letter can be found in this other blog.

Some extra info and thoughts in this article: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080523052458101

Worthington's story includes quotes from Matusow and Mahugh that provide intriguing insights into how the decisions were made. After noting that saving to the OASIS ODF 1.1 format would now be possible, Worthington writes:

However, the company is not quick to embrace its own creation. Mahugh stated that Microsoft would not implement the final ISO version of OOXML until Office 14 ships at an unstated date in the future. This variant of OOXML was designated ISO/IEC 29500 at the time it was certified as an ISO International standard in April.

"One way to look at it is the prioritization of formats," Mahugh explained. "We reach a point in time where we have to decide whether to continue to invest in a previous version [of Office] or to cut the cord and move forward."

ODF support was a priority for Microsoft, Mahugh noted, adding that "real world" customers say that there is a pressing need for PDF [AU: ODF?] support. "At this point there are no products using [ISO/IEC 29500] in the marketplace."

When will Microsoft support its own file format? Worthingon quotes Gartner Research's Michael Silver on that question as follows:

"Customers that are expecting true document fidelity from XML-based, ISO-standard document formats will continue to be disappointed." Silver observed that the most compatible formats to use today are Microsoft's legacy binaries, and he believes that Microsoft will be unlikely to convince customers to move to OOXML in the foreseeable future.

Indeed, had JEDEC limited Rambus to reasonable royalties and required it to provide licenses on a nondiscriminatory basis, we would expect less competition from alternative technologies, not more; high prices and constrained output tend to attract competitors, not to repel them. [Opinion, page 18]

This represents a rather startling lack of understanding regarding what standards are all about, as the purpose of a standard is not to provide incentives to launch non-compliant alternatives, but to provide incentives for everyone to give up that right in favor of the common good to be found from supporting a single standard.

Judge Williams wrote that there wasn't sufficient evidence to claim that the standards organization would have gone with different technology. He also wrote that "deceit merely enabling a monopolist to charge higher prices than it otherwise could have charged ... would not in itself constitute monopolization."

Check out the blog at Consortium Info on this

The whole OOXML vote debacle has really showcased corruption of the ISO.

You should have read before Andy Updegrove's blog.

He did a decent coverage of voting as well as gathered many comments on why M$ was destined to win.

Briefly, standardization process is made so that participation for every party is easy as possible and that interested parties can effectively communicate with each other using ISO infrastructures. Upshot is that organization which are interested in standard can do pretty much what they want.

Generally ISO is place where government bodies meet industry bodies and agree upon something. In the case of OOXML, M$ was alone - so it is essentially agreed with itself to accept the standard. All possible formalities were adhered to. All stuff of all committees had agreed on acceptance (because general practice is that interested parties (read M$) stuff the committee).

ISO process isn't corrupt. Nobody's expected that standardization has such a political side - since many government procurement procedures require agencies to use standards where available. M$ has overslept the ODF standardization and was literally stabbed in a back by ODF at many procurement deals: standard de jure trumps standard de facto there.

Actually, the ability to create many standards in the past doesn't even mean they can generate so many standards (of any quality) now or in the future. It also doesn't mean that there isn't a specific problem in SC34, the subcommittee that handles Document Description and Processing Languages. Apparently its work "ground to a halt". The additional of new NBs to the list of P-members apparently for the purpose of voting to approve OOXML apparently resulted in the inability of SC34 to function normally. One would think ISO and IEC would be very concerned about that. No mention of that in the FAQ, though.

see here for a piece at ConsortiumInfo on the matter...

----
Here is how the eleven countries that upgraded from O to P membership in the months (and often just days) before the OOXML voting period closed on OOXML, and also whether or not they voted in the more recent ballot (all data is from Rick's analysis of the voting record):

        Upgrades that voted to adopt OOXML and didn't vote later: 7
        (Cote dIvoire, Cyprus, Lebanon, Malta, Pakistan, Turkey, Venezuela)

        Upgrades that abstained on OOXML and didn't vote later: 1
        (Trinidad and Tobago)

        Upgrades that voted against OOXML and didn't vote later: 0

We believe standards debate should always be carried out with respect for all parties, even when they strongly disagree.

from

http://blogs.freecode.no/isene/2008/03/31/norwegian-committee-chairman-to-iso-count-the-vote-as-no/
http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080331114700984
http://blogs.freecode.no/isene/2008/03/30/promoting-the-repair-shop-philosophy/

This was just sent to ISO from the chairman of the Norwegian standards committee responsible for evaluating OOXML:

Formal protest regarding the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman (of 13 years standing) of the Norwegian mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34. I wish to inform you of serious irregularities in connection with the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML) and to lodge a formal protest.

You will have been notified that Norway voted to approve OOXML in this ballot. This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80% of which was against changing Norway's vote from No with comments to Yes.

Because of this irregularity, a call has been made for an investigation by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry with a view to changing the vote.

I hereby request that the Norwegian decision be suspended pending the results of this investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Pepper

Chairman, SN/K185 (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 mirror committee)

(sign.)

The Letter to ISO in pdf:

http://blogs.freecode.no/isene/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/iso-protest.pdf

The link in the summary will take you to This page. It appears that OOXML will pass if some more Yes votes don't turn to No. Ireland and the UK both switched from No to Yes.

The EU is already investigating the OOXML voting irregularities, having launched last september an investigation into this matter, as well as to microsoft's practices regarding office.
In the end however, the damage is done, if this vote succeeds, and it seems that's going to happen, ISO will be a complete and utter joke, as someone mentioned @ groklaw.net, I Sold Out.
As for microsoft, the only good thing about this, is that microsoft was/is so desperate to have OOXML approved, that it lost all common sense, and engaged and continues to engage in blatantly criminal behaviour, and doesn't even bothers to cover its tracks, which will make life much much easier for Ms.Nelly Kroes, the EU comissioner for the competition. As for the economic nationalism that will no doubt appear once microsoft gets another huge fine, and perhaps a temporary trade ban, IBM, Sun, Redhat are also american companies...
Just for reference:
http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080208082501776/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206106956/

See this web site for one example.

Wrong. See what Head of US Delegation Frank Farance said here:

The greek delegate Antonis Christofides also said here that Canada had a list of cases where the ECMA resolution made the text worse than the original.

Here:

http://consortiuminfo.org/

And Here:

http://www.groklaw.net/

Enjoy the links. I've been reading groklaw.net for about 5 years now. Worth every minute. I've been watching the OOXML/ODF process since the state of Massachusetts started talking about using some other format than MS Office. Dave Berlind broke the story on ZDNet.com of all places. I really enjoyed watching Microsoft and their allies work themselves up into a lather over the whole thing.

Seems that once governments started to think about lock-in, MS got interested in interoperability. I guess MS is really worried about shareholder lawsuits with claims that they didn't do *everything* they could to maintain share value. MS doesn't seem to get that the question for governments is how to maintain their sovereignty instead of MS shareholder value.

The current top article, for example, is about the ISO BRM on OOXML.

I am really amazed that Slashdot hasn't picked up this story yet. I mean, I just can't believe it! This is the story of the week. This is a huge thing, as those who have been following it are well aware. The process at the BRM was so flawed as to bring into serious question the integrity of the ISO/IEC JTC-1. I won't add to the tens of thousands of lines of text that have been written about it here, in fear of being ruled off-topic. I only want to question why this hasn't been aired on Slashdot.

Beginning on Friday, I was scanning the news anxiously to see how the BRM went, and shortly the first reports began to emerge. By Monday, the first report from an actual BRM participant came out. By Tuesday, the available information was growing exponentially. I was following all this on Groklaw, and kept flipping back and forth from Groklaw to Slashdot to see if they had picked it up yet. When a second blog by Andy Updegrove became a resource of links to every report by BRM participants, I could wait no longer. I wanted to see how this story was viewed by my fellow Slashdotters, naturally. I was so concerned that this still hadn't reached Slashdot that I reluctantly submitted the story myself. Then I started backtracking on the Firehose and discovered that there had already been 6 submissions at that point, and that was on Monday. I'll bet there have been dozens by now, besides thousands of people people clicking on those "Submit to Slashdot buttons all over the place". I just can't imagine why the editors haven't put this important story in front of Slashdot readers yet.

Please forgive me for interrupting the current story. I just had to get this off my chest.

Excerpt from a post by lawyer Andrew Updegrove, an open-standards advocate who tracks the issue on his Standards Blog:

I expect that it is no coincidence that this announcement comes just two business days (and only one, for most of the world) before the Ballot Resolution Meeting convenes in Geneva next Monday. This will effectively give those participating in the discussions of Microsoft's OOXML document format no opportunity to fully understand what Microsoft has actually promised to do, while reaping the maximum public relations benefit.

My blog entry begins:

The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that EU regulators have announced a third investigation into Microsoft's conduct on the desktop. This latest action demonstrates that while the EU has settled the case against Microsoft that ran for almost a decade, it remains as suspicious as ever regarding the software vendor's conduct, notwithstanding Microsoft's less combative stance in recent years. The news can be found in a story reported by Charles Forelle bylined in Brussells this morning. According to the Journal, the investigation will focus on whether Microsoft "violated antitrust laws during a struggle last year to ratify its Office software file format as an international standard." The article also says that the regulators are "stepping up scrutiny of the issue."

- Andy

Seriously. Microsoft is getting picked on.

No, it is not. It is simply faced with a single-minded regulator which takes its job seriously and isn't fazed by the fact that Microsoft is a brazen repeat-offender.

We don't yell at GM for not making its On-star open to everyone.

What Microsoft is currently doing with OOXML is a thoroughly unethical (paying companies PR contributions to vote in favour of OOXML, offering small countries rebates to vote in favour of OOCML, and suddenly stuffing ISO standards committees with pro-microsoft members who never before had an interest in ISO procedures in their lives) attempt to continue its lock-in, which regrettably seems to have a chance or working. (see e.g. http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080208082501776 and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/08/ooxml_eu_probe_iso/ )

I see absolutely nothing to salute Microsoft about regarding its determination to disregard fair-competition and anti-trust regulations and I support the EU in this matter. Why don't we see any US regulators step up to the plate?

Care to provide citations, AC Troll? I can.

I have been following the OOXML saga fairly closely; from Rob Weir's blog, to the NO-OOXML site (admitedly that is a rather partisan site, but I've found the technical arguments presented there generally to be both verifiable and compelling), and the Standards Blog, by Andy Updegrove who seems to know his stuff (which is bizarre since he is also a lawyer, but I guess he came from a parallel universe). I've also looked at sections of the spec myself, and I agree with the major technical criticisms; aside from being redundant in that there is already an ISO standard that could -- with well defined extensions -- cover everything Microsoft wants to include (ie, the backwards compatibility stuff), the OOXML document is a poorly worded draft of a 'standard' that is incomplete, inconsistent, and not ready for standardization.

By usual ISO standards (if it hadn't been submitted on the fast-track), it would be at the stage of a 'committee draft', with at least a couple of years of serious effort into working it into something useable. This is the process that ODF, along with most other ISO standards, went though, and if OOXML makes it through without a similar amount of scrutiny, ISO will have egg on their faces.

For Miguel to say it is a 'superb standard' means he either hasn't read it or followed the technical discussions (in which case he deserves the panning he will get for making such a clueless statement), or he really has sold out, in which case he deserves exile.

It ain't over 'till the fat man throws a chair...

Interesting you should say that:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070718060228231

OOXML is not to everyone's liking, with Sun Microsystems being denied a seat, and Microsoft holding the chair (President) ...

"* And when you don't have to release such PR to say 'momentum is building behind OpenSolaris'. I know hyping is sometimes quite cool, but it is just sick."

Yeah, it sounds similar to Microsoft shouting:

"This widespread participation and support is consistent with the rapid adoption of the Ecma Office Open XML file formats across multiple platforms and products from a wide range of IT vendors (including Apple, Novell, Corel, Sun, Microsoft, Java developers and Linux distributors), creating real value for IT users around the globe."

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070904053108577

According to a site that is keeping very close track of things:

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=2007090315253367

"Forecast: ISO Will Announce on Tuesday that OOXML Approval has Failed."

and more bad behaivour by Microsoft:

"In one case, that behavior led to the Swedish national vote being thrown out and replaced with an abstention, after it became apparent that one company voted more than once (Microsoft admitted that an employee had sent a memo urging business partners to join the National Body and vote to approve, and assuring them that their related fees would be offset by Microsoft marketing incentives)."

But *sshat New York Times, Kevin J. O'Brien:

"BERLIN, Sept. 3 -- Amid intense lobbying, Microsoft is expected to squeak out a victory this week to have its open document format..."

I don't think microsoft cares. They have no respect for international standards, other than what they themselves dictate. If the credibility of ISO suffers from this, I suspect it would actually make Microsoft very happy.

But most likely the vote will be 'NO' (that link is to the same blog as TFA, with an updated story). So, the main message is that after all the attempted corruptions by Microsoft, ISO survived and will hopefully be stronger for it.

Now consider what happens next:

Microsoft issues a press release saying, grudgingly, they'll have full 100% read/write compatibility with ODF in Microsoft Office 2007 1/2 within 3 weeks, so that governments and private customers can keep on using Microsoft Office indefinitely.

What's your problem with ODF being the sole ISO standard, now? If all word-processor companies can boast "100% compatible with ODF" and speak the truth?

Or are you saying Microsoft is incapable of allocating the people/time/money to implement a 700 page standard (as opposed to their own 6000 page standard)? In fact there are already several plug-ins with which this can be done (one commisioned by Microsoft from may 2007 which apparently is unusable and one by Sun which apparently works).

The point is, and I think it's a very important point, if ODF is mandated nobody loses (not even Microsoft; I don't believe *everyone* will drop Microsoft Office and switch to different word processors immediately; do you?). But if OOXML is mandated, the whole world ex. Microsoft loses. Government-sanctioned vendor-lock-in to a 3x convicted monopoly-abuser, what an enticing concept!

Can't believe that it has any chance of becoming an ISO standard unless Microsoft has completely bought the entire committee.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070824182623970

I do. Not only mind, but object, severely.

One of the reasons I object is: http://atrc.utoronto.ca/index.php?option=com_conte nt&sectionid=14&task=view&hidemainmenu=1&id=371.

There are a lot of other technical problems why it should not be a standard listed in various places on the web, see e.g. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections

BTW, I am disappointed on the disabled community for not "standing up" - as they did with ODF 1.0 (and therefore ODF 1.1 was created) http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070801182558375. Paid shills.

My canonical reference for these things is Andy Updegrove's blog (http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/).

This is the canonical list of cotradictions so far http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070117145745854. There are also links to Groklaw's analysis at the bottom of the list

OOXML is clearly not open. As the man says, its purpose is to describe Microsoft's Office product - bugs, rats and all.

No, that's just the best you have chosen to find yet.

Others have documented plenty of flaws and contradictions within the OOXML spec, including here http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070117145745854.

If you choose to ignore the evidence, that's up to you. It doesn't change anything else though.

That the roll out is going well is not a lie. Despite heavy interference from M$, it was right on schedule six months ago and the roll out was supposed to start only five months ago. Given the resignation of the CIO due to a smear and M$'s attempt to restructure their entire IT system, it's a miracle they are able to keep to their plans at all. It's the planning that takes time - roll outs happen in a week, even in the deadly inefficient world of Windoze.

Oh yeah, let's not forget the blind people FUD, which has limited deployment due to the state's "chosen accessibility technology". That's particularly irksome, considering the better stuff available in the free software world (Klaus Knopper's wife is legally blind), and bragging from M$ that ODF support would not be hard for them, but only if forced.

Very true. Of course M$ learned from the (old) IBM that one of the best ways to protect your market was to ignore standards, or undermine them, whilst publicly supporting them. Not too sure about the 'extend and publish' part - that's one way that M$ undermines existing standards - by 'extending' them, (making everything else incompatible). http://www.consortiuminfo.org/ has lots of info on this

According to Andy Upgrove, the Netherlands essentially were bought out by Microsoft like ANSI was. If Microsoft is successful in getting ISO approval, this California law will essentially get read in as a "Thou shalt use Microsoft Office" law.

While I hope ISO doesn't ratify OOXLM, the cynical side of me doesn't have a whole lot of hope.

I thought the main objection to OpenXML was that it fails to define a number of things, essentially saying "render like WordPerfect 1.0", making it an incomplete standard. Making it not impossible but very difficult for anyone other than Microsoft to implement it so it's fully compatible with the MS version.

The author dissmisses such concerns as "groundless":

Claims that the spec is impossible for third-parties to support have so far proven groundlessin fact, longtime rival Sun started working on an Excel Open XML import filter for OpenOffice.org's Calc program.

Sun is a big backer of Open Office which has been decoding M$'s secret formats for a decade, so their continuing is a non starter. How successful they will be is another matter and one M$ loses either way.

Slashdot pointed to a review that proved these issues back in July and Ars Technia forum members quickly pointed to other detailed and credible criticism Anyone who would confuse this as an IBM vrs. M$ story has taken the M$ party line without critical thought.