Slashdot Mirror

They did not bribe. They stacked the panel.

I hope that the EU antitrust investigation will somehow be successful in addressing this mess and punish Microsoft severely enough to dissuade them from trying such tactics ever again.

1) Any patent lawsuit against a user of a software component used by major vendors will automatically result in those vendors lending legal support to reduce the chance that their own customers will also end up being sued.
2) Any patent lawsuit costs the suing party at least several hundred thousand dollars.
3) Any patent put before the courts is at very great risk of being destroyed by prior art.
4) Any payout awarded from a single end user has to be in proportion to value of the patented technology. The value of a single instance will could only be measured in hundreds of dollars, not coming close to covering the costs of the lawsuit to the platiff.
5) Patent lawsuits take six years to over a decade to work it's way though appeals.
6) Developers will release new software using a method that circumvents the patent in question within two months. This will be quickly adopted and by the time the first patent case is resolved there will be no further customers for the patent holder to sue.
7) The outrage generated in taking out a case against any open source will result in Groklaw and other groups putting the suing party and their lawyers under the closest scrutiny. You will not believe the level of bad publicity, let alone the the amount of prior art, dirty business practices, and legal suspect practices and even violation of statutes that will be uncovered.

Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to get medieval on your ass."

Any IP case against users of open source puts the attacker at a far greater risk.

12) Denmark vote Yes ... but in the vote there was be about 50% Yes and 50% No
http://www.ds.dk/4225
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327231223154&title=Rough%20summary%20of%20the%20Dansih%20announcement&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=0#c683351

0) Bill Gates contacted the president of Mexico and ask to approve ms-ooxml
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103

1) Finland change is vote from Abstention to Yes without voting
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327104739103&title=Finland+Changes+Vote+to+%26quot%3BYes%26quot%3B+after+Questionable+%26quot%3BConsensus%26quot%3B&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=682930#c682940

2) Polish NB Chairwoman has changed the voting rules for the email ballot to "If you don't vote, it is counted as a YES", and she has threatened to sue committee members if they spread accusations
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49455/polish-chairwomen-distributes-microsoft-propaganda

3) Romania voted Yes. There is strong suspicion of ballot-stuffing and the Romanian Standardization Organization has so far refused to offer any information other than the vote distribution.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49319/romania-votes-yes-again-ballot-stuffing-lack-of-transparencyro
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-47722/last-minute-committee-stuffing-in-romania

4) Cuba voted No in September but that its vote was counted as Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324121844682

5) Brazilian representative alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated the "Law of Silence". It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can. The Brazilian delegate has written to ITTF
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324220213437

6) Belgium: Yes man invade Technical Committee
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48345/belgium-also-stuffed-with-microsoft-business-partners

7) Pakistan and Egypt stuffed?
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48053/pakistan-and-egypt-stuffed

8) USA: The Yes men are back for voting in the United States. OOXML was adopted 17 votes against 4, thanks to Microsoft and their 11 Business Partners.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46044/committee-stuffing-also-in-the-united-states:11-microsoft-business-partners

9) German vote Yes: only Yes and Abstain vote admitted. Without very strong pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with 9 to 8.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327231223154
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49525/limited-choice-at-german-din

10) Sweden: the vote is annulled because one member vote two times. No new vote will be cast because there are no time for a new vote (sorry no-link)

11) ISO has violated WTO rules accepting ms-ooxml as possible standard. Tineke Egyedi, president of the European Academy for Standardisation, is critical of OOXML being

0) Bill Gates contacted the president of Mexico and ask to approve ms-ooxml
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103

1) Finland change is vote from Abstention to Yes without voting
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327104739103&title=Finland+Changes+Vote+to+%26quot%3BYes%26quot%3B+after+Questionable+%26quot%3BConsensus%26quot%3B&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=682930#c682940

2) Polish NB Chairwoman has changed the voting rules for the email ballot to "If you don't vote, it is counted as a YES", and she has threatened to sue committee members if they spread accusations
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49455/polish-chairwomen-distributes-microsoft-propaganda

3) Romania voted Yes. There is strong suspicion of ballot-stuffing and the Romanian Standardization Organization has so far refused to offer any information other than the vote distribution.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49319/romania-votes-yes-again-ballot-stuffing-lack-of-transparencyro
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-47722/last-minute-committee-stuffing-in-romania

4) Cuba voted No in September but that its vote was counted as Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324121844682

5) Brazilian representative alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated the "Law of Silence". It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can. The Brazilian delegate has written to ITTF
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324220213437

6) Belgium: Yes man invade Technical Committee
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48345/belgium-also-stuffed-with-microsoft-business-partners

7) Pakistan and Egypt stuffed?
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48053/pakistan-and-egypt-stuffed

8) USA: The Yes men are back for voting in the United States. OOXML was adopted 17 votes against 4, thanks to Microsoft and their 11 Business Partners.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46044/committee-stuffing-also-in-the-united-states:11-microsoft-business-partners

9) German vote Yes: only Yes and Abstain vote admitted. Without very strong pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with 9 to 8.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327231223154
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49525/limited-choice-at-german-din

10) Sweden: the vote is annulled because one member vote two times. No new vote will be cast because there are no time for a new vote (sorry no-link)

11) ISO has violated WTO rules accepting ms-ooxml as possible standard. Tineke Egyedi, president of the European Academy for Standardisation, is critical of OOXML being

0) Bill Gates contacted the president of Mexico and ask to approve ms-ooxml
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103

1) Finland change is vote from Abstention to Yes without voting
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327104739103&title=Finland+Changes+Vote+to+%26quot%3BYes%26quot%3B+after+Questionable+%26quot%3BConsensus%26quot%3B&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=682930#c682940

2) Polish NB Chairwoman has changed the voting rules for the email ballot to "If you don't vote, it is counted as a YES", and she has threatened to sue committee members if they spread accusations
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49455/polish-chairwomen-distributes-microsoft-propaganda

3) Romania voted Yes. There is strong suspicion of ballot-stuffing and the Romanian Standardization Organization has so far refused to offer any information other than the vote distribution.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49319/romania-votes-yes-again-ballot-stuffing-lack-of-transparencyro
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-47722/last-minute-committee-stuffing-in-romania

4) Cuba voted No in September but that its vote was counted as Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324121844682

5) Brazilian representative alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated the "Law of Silence". It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can. The Brazilian delegate has written to ITTF
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324220213437

6) Belgium: Yes man invade Technical Committee
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48345/belgium-also-stuffed-with-microsoft-business-partners

7) Pakistan and Egypt stuffed?
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48053/pakistan-and-egypt-stuffed

8) USA: The Yes men are back for voting in the United States. OOXML was adopted 17 votes against 4, thanks to Microsoft and their 11 Business Partners.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46044/committee-stuffing-also-in-the-united-states:11-microsoft-business-partners

9) German vote Yes: only Yes and Abstain vote admitted. Without very strong pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with 9 to 8.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327231223154
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49525/limited-choice-at-german-din

10) Sweden: the vote is annulled because one member vote two times. No new vote will be cast because there are no time for a new vote (sorry no-link)

11) ISO has violated WTO rules accepting ms-ooxml as possible standard. Tineke Egyedi, president of the European Academy for Standardisation, is critical of OOXML being

0) Bill Gates contacted the president of Mexico and ask to approve ms-ooxml
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103

1) Finland change is vote from Abstention to Yes without voting
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327104739103&title=Finland+Changes+Vote+to+%26quot%3BYes%26quot%3B+after+Questionable+%26quot%3BConsensus%26quot%3B&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=682930#c682940

2) Polish NB Chairwoman has changed the voting rules for the email ballot to "If you don't vote, it is counted as a YES", and she has threatened to sue committee members if they spread accusations
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49455/polish-chairwomen-distributes-microsoft-propaganda

3) Romania voted Yes. There is strong suspicion of ballot-stuffing and the Romanian Standardization Organization has so far refused to offer any information other than the vote distribution.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49319/romania-votes-yes-again-ballot-stuffing-lack-of-transparencyro
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-47722/last-minute-committee-stuffing-in-romania

4) Cuba voted No in September but that its vote was counted as Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324121844682

5) Brazilian representative alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated the "Law of Silence". It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can. The Brazilian delegate has written to ITTF
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324220213437

6) Belgium: Yes man invade Technical Committee
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48345/belgium-also-stuffed-with-microsoft-business-partners

7) Pakistan and Egypt stuffed?
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48053/pakistan-and-egypt-stuffed

8) USA: The Yes men are back for voting in the United States. OOXML was adopted 17 votes against 4, thanks to Microsoft and their 11 Business Partners.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46044/committee-stuffing-also-in-the-united-states:11-microsoft-business-partners

9) German vote Yes: only Yes and Abstain vote admitted. Without very strong pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with 9 to 8.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327231223154
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49525/limited-choice-at-german-din

10) Sweden: the vote is annulled because one member vote two times. No new vote will be cast because there are no time for a new vote (sorry no-link)

11) ISO has violated WTO rules accepting ms-ooxml as possible standard. Tineke Egyedi, president of the European Academy for Standardisation, is critical of OOXML being

0) Bill Gates contacted the president of Mexico and ask to approve ms-ooxml
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103

1) Finland change is vote from Abstention to Yes without voting
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20080327104739103&title=Finland+Changes+Vote+to+%26quot%3BYes%26quot%3B+after+Questionable+%26quot%3BConsensus%26quot%3B&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=682930#c682940

2) Polish NB Chairwoman has changed the voting rules for the email ballot to "If you don't vote, it is counted as a YES", and she has threatened to sue committee members if they spread accusations
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49455/polish-chairwomen-distributes-microsoft-propaganda

3) Romania voted Yes. There is strong suspicion of ballot-stuffing and the Romanian Standardization Organization has so far refused to offer any information other than the vote distribution.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49319/romania-votes-yes-again-ballot-stuffing-lack-of-transparencyro
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-47722/last-minute-committee-stuffing-in-romania

4) Cuba voted No in September but that its vote was counted as Yes
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324121844682

5) Brazilian representative alleges that he believes Microsoft has itself violated the "Law of Silence". It relates to Microsoft's claim that 98% of issues were resolved at the meeting, which he says is inaccurate, but his question relates to why Microsoft can talk about the BRM and no one else can. The Brazilian delegate has written to ITTF
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080324220213437

6) Belgium: Yes man invade Technical Committee
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48345/belgium-also-stuffed-with-microsoft-business-partners

7) Pakistan and Egypt stuffed?
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-48053/pakistan-and-egypt-stuffed

8) USA: The Yes men are back for voting in the United States. OOXML was adopted 17 votes against 4, thanks to Microsoft and their 11 Business Partners.
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46044/committee-stuffing-also-in-the-united-states:11-microsoft-business-partners

9) German vote Yes: only Yes and Abstain vote admitted. Without very strong pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with 9 to 8.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327231223154
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-49525/limited-choice-at-german-din

10) Sweden: the vote is annulled because one member vote two times. No new vote will be cast because there are no time for a new vote (sorry no-link)

11) ISO has violated WTO rules accepting ms-ooxml as possible standard. Tineke Egyedi, president of the European Academy for Standardisation, is critical of OOXML being

Also on groklaw:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080328090328998

"Jomar Silva, a delegate from Brazil, which voted No, has now done what he said he would do and has posted what he saw and heard at the BRM. It is a deeply shocking tale of maneuvering the delegates to vote against their will by presenting a kind of Sophie's Choice of options, all designed, according to what I gather from his account, to get a positive result for Microsoft."

Parent was lifted verbatim from this post.

Maybe Animats is the Anonymous, but give credit where credit is due.

From the thread on Groklaw

I reproduce here the response from grokker59 and below Ron Weir's response.

Authored by: grokker59 on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT

Item 1: If DIS29500 is not approved, *national bodies* will loose a forum to work on DIS29500 - circular reasoning. If DIS29500 is not approved, NBs won't *NEED* a forum to work on DIS29500 !

Item 2: Microsoft-only vendors may lose contracts because Microsoft failed to get "their" format approved. Circular reasoning. By not standardizing on a proprietary, lock-in document format, those companies that only sell proprietary lock-in document software no longer have a guarantee of continuing sales to locked-in customers. They might need to support an additional product or two to continue getting contract awards.

Item 3: If OOXML is disapproved, then ODF loses because it has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between ODF and the complete lack of formula documentation in OOXML ? How is this a comparison and why do I care whether ODF shares formulas with OpenXML ? Microsoft's Office 2007 does not use OpenXML. Neither are Excel formulas documented in OOXML to the extent that translation can take place. What's important is that ODF interoperate to the greatest extent possible with Office 2007 and future versions - not that it interoperate with a format that Microsoft has already abandoned and/or never implemented.

Item 4: OOXML/OpenXML does not define legacy features, nor does OOXML/OpenXML provide a mapping for legacy features. Furthermore, all legacy features were moved to 'deprecated' status in the BRM, so there is no requirement to support them in either OOXML or ODF. OpenOffice already supports MS legacy features better than MS products, so I fail to see the gain of supporting DIS29500 to provide something that ODF products (OpenOffice.org) already does better than MS products.

Item 5: "ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes." Since MS products do not implement DIS29500, this is is a non-issue. MS has already stated they do not feel bound to support future DIS29500 versions in future products, so ODF MSOffice mappings are never going to be ISO-based. Nor should we expect MS to open their file format protocols in future versions.

There is *certainly* no reason to expect that MS will "offer a seat at the table" to any public organization during the planning/implementation of their next version of MSOffice since they've already stated that they do not feel bound by DIS29500 or its successors in ISO.

...and the response from the one and only Rob Weir in the same thread

Another view from the ODF TC

Authored by: rcweir on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT

As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.

Of course, he is entitled to his personal views, and so am I.

Patrick makes 5 assertions in his latest letter, and these are easily rebutted:

1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.

*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.

One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be "Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done

From the thread on Groklaw

I reproduce here the response from grokker59 and below Ron Weir's response.

Authored by: grokker59 on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT

Item 1: If DIS29500 is not approved, *national bodies* will loose a forum to work on DIS29500 - circular reasoning. If DIS29500 is not approved, NBs won't *NEED* a forum to work on DIS29500 !

Item 2: Microsoft-only vendors may lose contracts because Microsoft failed to get "their" format approved. Circular reasoning. By not standardizing on a proprietary, lock-in document format, those companies that only sell proprietary lock-in document software no longer have a guarantee of continuing sales to locked-in customers. They might need to support an additional product or two to continue getting contract awards.

Item 3: If OOXML is disapproved, then ODF loses because it has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between ODF and the complete lack of formula documentation in OOXML ? How is this a comparison and why do I care whether ODF shares formulas with OpenXML ? Microsoft's Office 2007 does not use OpenXML. Neither are Excel formulas documented in OOXML to the extent that translation can take place. What's important is that ODF interoperate to the greatest extent possible with Office 2007 and future versions - not that it interoperate with a format that Microsoft has already abandoned and/or never implemented.

Item 4: OOXML/OpenXML does not define legacy features, nor does OOXML/OpenXML provide a mapping for legacy features. Furthermore, all legacy features were moved to 'deprecated' status in the BRM, so there is no requirement to support them in either OOXML or ODF. OpenOffice already supports MS legacy features better than MS products, so I fail to see the gain of supporting DIS29500 to provide something that ODF products (OpenOffice.org) already does better than MS products.

Item 5: "ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes." Since MS products do not implement DIS29500, this is is a non-issue. MS has already stated they do not feel bound to support future DIS29500 versions in future products, so ODF MSOffice mappings are never going to be ISO-based. Nor should we expect MS to open their file format protocols in future versions.

There is *certainly* no reason to expect that MS will "offer a seat at the table" to any public organization during the planning/implementation of their next version of MSOffice since they've already stated that they do not feel bound by DIS29500 or its successors in ISO.

...and the response from the one and only Rob Weir in the same thread

Another view from the ODF TC

Authored by: rcweir on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT

As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.

Of course, he is entitled to his personal views, and so am I.

Patrick makes 5 assertions in his latest letter, and these are easily rebutted:

1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.

*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.

One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be "Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done

From the thread on Groklaw

I reproduce here the response from grokker59 and below Ron Weir's response.

Authored by: grokker59 on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT

Item 1: If DIS29500 is not approved, *national bodies* will loose a forum to work on DIS29500 - circular reasoning. If DIS29500 is not approved, NBs won't *NEED* a forum to work on DIS29500 !

Item 2: Microsoft-only vendors may lose contracts because Microsoft failed to get "their" format approved. Circular reasoning. By not standardizing on a proprietary, lock-in document format, those companies that only sell proprietary lock-in document software no longer have a guarantee of continuing sales to locked-in customers. They might need to support an additional product or two to continue getting contract awards.

Item 3: If OOXML is disapproved, then ODF loses because it has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between ODF and the complete lack of formula documentation in OOXML ? How is this a comparison and why do I care whether ODF shares formulas with OpenXML ? Microsoft's Office 2007 does not use OpenXML. Neither are Excel formulas documented in OOXML to the extent that translation can take place. What's important is that ODF interoperate to the greatest extent possible with Office 2007 and future versions - not that it interoperate with a format that Microsoft has already abandoned and/or never implemented.

Item 4: OOXML/OpenXML does not define legacy features, nor does OOXML/OpenXML provide a mapping for legacy features. Furthermore, all legacy features were moved to 'deprecated' status in the BRM, so there is no requirement to support them in either OOXML or ODF. OpenOffice already supports MS legacy features better than MS products, so I fail to see the gain of supporting DIS29500 to provide something that ODF products (OpenOffice.org) already does better than MS products.

Item 5: "ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes." Since MS products do not implement DIS29500, this is is a non-issue. MS has already stated they do not feel bound to support future DIS29500 versions in future products, so ODF MSOffice mappings are never going to be ISO-based. Nor should we expect MS to open their file format protocols in future versions.

There is *certainly* no reason to expect that MS will "offer a seat at the table" to any public organization during the planning/implementation of their next version of MSOffice since they've already stated that they do not feel bound by DIS29500 or its successors in ISO.

...and the response from the one and only Rob Weir in the same thread

Another view from the ODF TC

Authored by: rcweir on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT

As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.

Of course, he is entitled to his personal views, and so am I.

Patrick makes 5 assertions in his latest letter, and these are easily rebutted:

1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.

*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.

One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be "Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done

Wanna know how much Microsoft has reformed this sort of thing?

[Microsoft Internal Document] I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.

A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed - just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.

http://groklaw.net/ in general and the article in particular are accessible from Germany via my local ISP. No need for any proxy!

Groklaw is among the sites currently being blocked from Europe along with related sites. If you're in Europe, you might need to go through a proxy to reach Groklaw articles.

It's hard to say whether all the Pro-Open Standards material and damning data on DIS 29500 is the cause or if it's the Iowa case evidence about MS' decade long jihad against 'non-believers'

They have some interesting information about the defects of the OOXML proposed standard (as well as a good sense of the big picture between (OOXML/ODF). You can find them here:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051216153153504

Enjoy.

Hey! where have we seen this excuse before?

Smashing hard disks pisses off judges, and they write things like this:

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20041021131512626

113. Late in the evening of April 29, 1997, Merkey returned a laptop computer to Novell. Upon inspection Novell discovered that the hard drive in the computer was smashed. That same computer and hard drive were offered as an exhibit and the court has personally inspected the computer.

114. The hard drive of the laptop is a modular unit, easily removable from the computer.

115. At trial the hard drive was removed and inspected by the court. It had the appearance of having been smashed with several blows from a hard object like a hammer.

116. Merkey has offered no less than four different explanations of how the hard drive came to be smashed, pointing most of the blame to his children.

117. One of his explanations is that he was so angry at the replevin that he threw the computer at Novell's door when he returned it. This explanation does not fly (like the computer allegedly did) for neither the computer carrying case nor the laptop bear any evidence of physical abuse or damage, though the hard drive, which ordinarily is mounted within the plastic shell of the computer, clearly has been smashed.

The dog ate it! No, my KIDS smashed it...no...IT IS WHITE HOUSE POLICY! (Jon Lovitz Voice) Yeah, That's the ticket!

--
BMO

I guess that should be a 'certain person', because they required a certain designated contact with the NB to send them the message about their vote. Mind you, this does make sense (someone else can't speak on behalf of the organization), but with all the things they have to do and how strewn out they are, it would be easy to screw up and have your vote rejected.

Anyhow, the rules aren't at all clear to me (nor, I gather, to those who need to follow them), which is what I think is the real story. Because I have this funny feeling that the rules will later be construed or rewritten into whichever form benefits Microsoft the most. I mean, it's in Microsoft's playbook, so it's not like we're not anticipating it.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

from Groklaw:

This posting comes to you through an anonymizing proxy. Not because I'm somewhere behind the Great Firewall of China or on the Microsoft campus in Redmond... but because Ibiblio's carrier (Cogent) has decided it does not want to peer with TeliaSonera anymore. So they blocked all traffic coming from or destined to TeliaSonera. When they found out that those pesky routers did what they were designed to do - route traffic around damaged nodes - they advertised some cheap routes and subsequently dropped traffic, thereby sealing the leaks. Leaving me, and many with me, without access to a substantial part of the internet. OK, everyone who can not reach Groklaw, please post here :-)

As I am actually posting here it is clear that there are ways around these commercial blockades, just as there are ways around political blockades [1]. Anonymizing proxy servers can be used by those hit by Cogent's last temper trantum until either Cogent and TeliaSonera make up or (preferrably) traffic is routed around Cogent.

If this type of behaviour is to be the future for the commercialised internet the need for services like those provided by Garden Networks or the Tor Project will grow. But the real question of course is whether this type of behaviour should be tolerated from a carrier. It essentially boils down to censorship, something which is not allowed in a common carrier as far as I know. If they had just refused to peer with TeliaSonera they would be in the right. Now that they actively attract and subsequently drop traffic they have crossed a line. If I were to be a Cogent customer I would seriously consider to move my business elsewhere or at least consider to relegate Cogent to the role of backup carrier. So Ibiblio, if you are reading this message from behind the wall...

[1]as predicted in many a cyberpunk novel the differences between politics and commerce continue to dwindle until they are all but indiscernible...

Why would you need VBA programmers? We're talking about the product in the article, OpenOffice.org 3.0, and that does not use VBA.

You get javascript and python macros. So that means you don't have to waste money on a bag of shit just to do macros. You can have your macro programmers with a comp sci background. And you can have them participate in web development and other projects.

So it kills two birds with one stone. You are less likely to hire MS boosters who will run their little anti-technology jihadz against you from inside your own office, work is so much easier without them around. You get programmers that can participate in more than one area. Win-win situation.

So it is all the the the qualifications and the qualities of the individual and how well they will fulfil that role...

The problem of conflict of interest, on its own, ought to be enough.

Re-read my post, the word 'evil' is not mentioned, just conflict of interest. Conflict of interest disqualifies any M$ candidates from the position. But as you imply, 'evil' is as evil does.

Since you make the association between M$ and the word evil, how else would you describe someone that works for an interest that causes harm to its customers and net-users in general, has an adversarial relation with its customers, has a multi-decade court-documented history of illegal and unethical practices? The 'I just work here' excuse doesn't cut it.

Don't confuse M$ with closed source. M$ is an opponent of both closed source and open source competition. M$ has run its Jihad and for a decade, holding the 'net back. It's harmed innumerable businesses both inside and outside the IT sector. M$ stops now unless gullible people fall for the same lines again and again.

The purpose of this complexity is to ensure the tool is obsolete before it is mastered.

Since .NET platforms have an average lifespan of what, 18 months? You could spend that much time in a bootcamp drilling namespaces and methods all day and not get there before it's time to enroll in the next one. 384,000 methods? 12,324 public classes? How many of those are deprecated? How many soon will be? And of course if you use this junk to develop for windows, try to remember not to get uppity and make a market with your product. You don't have a chance because the real tools are not here. These are just toys to keep you occupied. But look! They're shiny!

Do not invest your time and money learning trash like this when the turnover is this high. It's not worth it.

What is PJ?

Pamela Jones, creator and editor groklaw.net.

The MoGTroll - aka Maureen O'Gara - a SCO shill masquerading as a writer, asked the same question. So did SOC's Minister of MisInformation - Darl McBride, again in an attempt to discredit PJ by intimating she was (among other allegations) a bunch of people from IBM.

Calling this claim "the most damning [against Wales] yet," as the SMH does, ignores the fact that it is coming from a thoroughly untrustworthy source.

From a legal perspective if you are helping a company file claims in court saying XYZ action is illegal, you need to have a legal backing for that. If you are not licensed to do so then you can't. It's called expert witness and what the requirements are. This is why not everyone can be an expert witness on some topic just because (and why Daubert hearings remove expert witnesses).

Basically unlike a non expert who anything they say is not taken as fact (which is why complaining to a judge on a traffic ticket still gets you guilty if you don't use the proper legal terms such as object, lack of evidence, etc).

This in fact is a huge deal. Also operating illegally when it comes to spying can carry some hefty fines in the US especially when it can be proven (remember they're suing saying they have evidence, so that level of "proof" becomes very easy to show - its like self incrimination but not a kind you can plead 5th amendment on).

As PJ commented:

"So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they have not, and I know they have not."

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080305124744293

You flaws 1 and 2 also applied to the ODF ISO standardization.

Not true. ODF standardization by ISO didn't use the fast-tracking process, it was done by the PAS (Publicly Available Specification), which allows the appropriate time for scrutiny of a standard, differently of a fast-tracking process, which is supposed to ratify a de facto standard, which OOXML isn't at all. If you want more details, read Fast Track versus PAS.

Also, from Wikipedia, you can see that the work on ODF started in December 2002 in OASIS, it was approved by OASIS as a standard in May 2005, was submitted as a PAS to ISO in November 2005 and "after a six-month review period, on May 3, 2006 OpenDocument unanimously passed its six-month DIS ballot in JTC1, with broad participation, after which the OpenDocument specification was approved for release as an ISO and IEC International Standard under the name ISO/IEC 26300:2006". If that's not enough scrutiny, I don't know what is.

(And it needed fixing...see the massive changes in ODF 1.2 and compare to 1.0)

Not true. The changes in newer versions of ODF are evolution of the standard. New features are being introduced. Version 1.1 introduced accessibility features. Version 1.2 introduces metadata capabilities, which allows the use of ODF in the semantic web.

So why is Microsoft being required to operate under different rules?

Actually, Microsoft is playing by their own rules, but not in the sense you imply. The rules for fast-tracking seem to have been written specially for OOXML.

People seem to want theirs to be flawless before allowing it to be an ISO standard--a requirement no one else has been subject to.

You're making a lot of false statements on ODF, I wish you could back them out. You base your whole line of thought on the assumption that OOXML is following the same process than ODF, which is completely false, as all the links I included here will show. Agreed, the links are from ODF backers, but it's clear that Microsoft wouldn't start making these comparisons, it only shows how they're abusing a process to have their way.

However, even if Microsoft would submit it as a PAS, after reviewing and finishing it in ECMA, and even if they didn't use dirty tricks to try to approve their standard, it should never be considered for standardization anyway! The thing about standards is that, unless everybody uses the same standard for the same purpose, they're irrelevant. They only solve problems if they're adopted. There already is a standard for office documents, it's ODF.

Instead of promoting their own, on the basis that it provides legacy compatibility (fallacy, otherwise there would be tables on how to convert binary documents), and that standards should compete (fallacy, products should compete, they should all use the same standard so that you can move from one product to the other and take all your documents with you, you would choose products based on features and would not be locked into any vendor), Microsoft should instead just adopt ODF.

The argument that ODF is insufficient for MS Office is a fallacy as well, because ODF supports extensions, and for versions 1.1 and 1.2 (or 1.3, there's still time!) Microsoft could indicate exactly what they think is needed in ODF to support conversion from legacy formats. Microsoft is part of OASIS, they were actually invited to cooperate on ODF when the process started, but they refused. ODF proponents would certainly be interest

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.

It's always important to notice when an article starts off with "The SCO Group plans ..." and then doesn't seek out any verification or outside opinions. It's probably another lazy journalism piece where the author simply rewords a press release and calls it "news". All this article does is lay out a motion with no investigation into the context.

For example, you would think he would have noticed that Novell has already objected to the reorg because of the sketchy details. Like, does SNCP even have access to that kind of money? There is this article that says Norris might have Middle East connections, but no explanations of why those connections would want in on the SCO case. Or how much of the bill they'd be willing to cough up. The schedule's a bit iffy too. Novell points out that SCO's hanging on to the "definitive documents" on the reorg and isn't planning on releasing them until the day that objections to the reorg are due. Read carefully and you'll see that objections are due by March 26th at 4:00pm, while the documents are to be released on March 26th, but with no time stated. Any bets on SCO planning on providing those at 4:01pm?

Keep in mind that SCO has already proposed and scrapped a bailout deal. In that one, they were playing a shell game where all the company's assets (and execs) went one way, while all the company's liabilities went the other. Needless to say, the courts weren't going to let that happen.

The bottom line is that this is SCO, so you already know it's a scam. It's just a matter of waiting and watching to determine what kind of scam they're trying to run this time.

It's always important to notice when an article starts off with "The SCO Group plans ..." and then doesn't seek out any verification or outside opinions. It's probably another lazy journalism piece where the author simply rewords a press release and calls it "news". All this article does is lay out a motion with no investigation into the context.

For example, you would think he would have noticed that Novell has already objected to the reorg because of the sketchy details. Like, does SNCP even have access to that kind of money? There is this article that says Norris might have Middle East connections, but no explanations of why those connections would want in on the SCO case. Or how much of the bill they'd be willing to cough up. The schedule's a bit iffy too. Novell points out that SCO's hanging on to the "definitive documents" on the reorg and isn't planning on releasing them until the day that objections to the reorg are due. Read carefully and you'll see that objections are due by March 26th at 4:00pm, while the documents are to be released on March 26th, but with no time stated. Any bets on SCO planning on providing those at 4:01pm?

Keep in mind that SCO has already proposed and scrapped a bailout deal. In that one, they were playing a shell game where all the company's assets (and execs) went one way, while all the company's liabilities went the other. Needless to say, the courts weren't going to let that happen.

The bottom line is that this is SCO, so you already know it's a scam. It's just a matter of waiting and watching to determine what kind of scam they're trying to run this time.

link

If you were looking for an excuse for an "informative" mod, here it is.

From: James Plamondon

Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 5:33 PM

To: Darryn Dieken

cc John Colleran

Subject: Re: Windows Evangelism!

Darryn -

Sounds great! But I'm leaving the company In early March, and indeed will be on vacation until then, starting at the end of next week. Upon departure from Microsoft. I'm moving my family to Australia, where I will sit on the beach, drink pina coladas, and laugh at the world.

Here are some documents from the Good Old Days that you might find to be handy in starting this new group. Don't worry about them leaking; they were already entered into the public record by Bristol Technologies as part of their private anti-trust case.

> > Timeline.doc >> > >

Hoping that these will help you keep the flame alive after the old warhorses like me go out to pasture, I remain Yours

A very illuminating Microsoft Confidential presentation from the antitrust discovery process. If you're in a hurry start with the slides at page 9. This is what he should have been asked about...

Comes-3096.pdf

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080107182525297 http://pixelqi.com/

As in science, this incremental improvement will move all of us forward.

Well this is interesting, whenever Open Source tries to learn from Microsoft Steve 'rabid-monkey-man' Ballmer starts throwing around software/idea patent threats.

If this is an incremental process that can move us all forward, how about Microsoft offer up their patents to the OSDL Patent Commons? Or just allow Free/Open Source software developers to work without threat of being sued? Oh yeah, they'd rather reserve the right to sue anyone who dares to even look at their markets.

Forgot to put the links to Saturday's Groklaw article and also the earlier Groklaw Analysis work (the later has links to analysis of an even earlier report).

Forgot to put the links to Saturday's Groklaw article and also the earlier Groklaw Analysis work (the later has links to analysis of an even earlier report).

Jacobson didn't say that MediaSentry's methods were correct. He said he assumed they were correct.

--Original Message-- From: Doug Jacobson [mailto:redacted] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:28 AM To: Richard Gabriel Subject: Lindor report Disk

13) I will testify to the procedures used and results obtained by MediaSentry coupled with the information supplied by Defendant's ISP, to demonstrate the Defendant's Internet account and computer were used to download and upload Copyrighted music from the Internet using the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.

14) I will testify that based on the MediaSentry data mentioned above and registry entries recovered from the computer that the computer had a public IP address and was not connected to the Internet via a wireless router.

Jacobson's testimony was perfectly fine. There's certainly room to question the accuracy of the data given to him, and to a lesser extent, some room to dispute how conclusive his findings were, but this is way beyond that.

Q. Do you know what processes and procedures MediaSentry employed?
A. I do not know the inner works of MediaSentry processes and procedures.
Q. Do you know what software they used?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if it was well known off-the-shelf software or if it was proprietary software?
A. Again, I do not know the inner workings of MediaSentry's operations.
Q. Do you know if their software had been peer-reviewed or published or anything like that?
A. Not that I'm aware of.

This story is on Groklaw, too.

There's an absolutely night-and-day comparison between the "expert" and the expert. One won't discuss his fee arrangement without a court order, the other put it in his report. One was produced as a witness to testify about things that, under oath, he said he knew nothing about, while the other wasn't.

I simply cannot understand why Dr. Jacobsen would put his name on a report like that, but I can't imagine that it will enhance his career.

Yep. With Zimbra, Kolab, and Citadel that makes six. However, the magazines and newspapers don't dare write a word about them, even if they would. In addition to being one of the last remaining advertisers, MS has fifth-columnists working against competition in many places. It's not a conspiracy, just greed and/or politics.

There fixed that for you. It's one aspect near the heart of the 10+ year anti-trust trial MS lost in 2004 and lost in appeal for in 2007.

If Windows or any of the products worked with standards, then it would be possible to swap out components. One reason for the extreme suckitude is that the lock-in guarantees no competition. Old habits die hard and going way back, MS DOS 4 sucked rocks a market for DR-DOS which in turn caused MS-DOS 5 which unlike 4 was usable. Same for the Windows-Outlook-Exchange, except now there is lock-in to such an extent that businesses have to be quite serious about dropping MS and getting into functional products.

Actually, to nitpick, capitalism failed spectacularly a while back, at least once, being one of the first methods to fail during the 1900's. Yet it gets propped up again and again. The last centuries have shown us that no single model works. However, there is strong evidence to show that the best pieces of several models can be combined and used together as a sort of Middle Path.

Microsoft is a good example of a company that takes profit from the "loopholes" of capitalism.

Be that as it may, no system can do well with the kind of abuse the MSFT movement is dishing out. The economic damage caused by MS has spread far beyond the IT sector and into nearly every branch of business and government.

By using lock in to their proprietary formats and bundling IE and WMP in the OS, they've achieved to keep for a long time more than 90% of market share on a wide range of products, to force people to upgrade and pay them more money, and all that without innovating (if you really look at their products, you'll see that in the last 5 years they didn't introduce any new feature worth buying, mostly cosmetic changes only). All that just using dirty tactics by making sure no one could create programs compatible or interoperatable with theirs.

I do believe in a free market, but this market we have with Microsoft is anything but free. And I do think governments have the responsability to level the playing field here.

Governments do have the legal responsibility to level the playing field. It's been tried in 1996-1998-2008, 1999-2004-2007, to point out two of the ongoing legal threads, but so far the governments have been all bark and no bite.

The end result from national and local government intervention to-date: nothing but delay.

We have twenty years of governments not being able to force the MS movement to do anything, so it's unlikely to happen now. The situation is unlikely to improve until software users, especially larger customers, vote with their wallets. Until then they are just feeding money into making the problem persist and even grown. Not that a lot of MS 'revenue' doesn't come from buying / selling / issuing its own stock, but adding to it through using the products and services doesn't send a message of disapproval.

The real story from Groklaw, How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958

I submitted this story last weekend. One of the many juicy excerpts....

I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed - just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.


If you can't win by technical merit, stack the panel and buy the moderator. OpenDoc was superior and I find it interesting that were there again after 10+ years with the OOXML vs ODF battle.

I think Microsoft just killed my subscription(s) to every Pro-Windows magazine I subscribe too (DrDobbs, MSDN, etc). Now every favorable opinion I've read about Microsoft will be biased with a "Did Microsoft purchase that expert opinion?". If you compete against Microsoft you will loose because they control the Pundits/Press, and Moderators. Its all about the marketing, not the technical advantages of your product.

My opinion and I reserve the right to be wrong.
Enjoy,

Very few people agree. Consensus amongst most who've reviewed the actual content of the statement is that it's business as usual.

And it's going to take everyone else decades to recover from what we've lost in revenue because we had to deal with the company you support.

You're supporting a company that apparently manipulates a balloting process, views developers as pawns and one-night stands, is pretty much trying to replace the OLPC (an educational platform) with Windows laptops (which have nothing to do with education), and does many, many other evil things. You're indirectly supporting the Gates Foundation, which looks like it's going to be as good for science as Microsoft has been for software.

Microsoft couldn't do it without its employees, i.e. you. You're enabling Microsoft, and in my view, you are partly responsible for its continued ability to wreak havoc on the world. Don't you feel like a sociopath?

And it's going to take everyone else decades to recover from what we've lost in revenue because we had to deal with the company you support.

You're supporting a company that apparently manipulates a balloting process, views developers as pawns and one-night stands, is pretty much trying to replace the OLPC (an educational platform) with Windows laptops (which have nothing to do with education), and does many, many other evil things. You're indirectly supporting the Gates Foundation, which looks like it's going to be as good for science as Microsoft has been for software.

Microsoft couldn't do it without its employees, i.e. you. You're enabling Microsoft, and in my view, you are partly responsible for its continued ability to wreak havoc on the world. Don't you feel like a sociopath?

And it's going to take everyone else decades to recover from what we've lost in revenue because we had to deal with the company you support.

You're supporting a company that apparently manipulates a balloting process, views developers as pawns and one-night stands, is pretty much trying to replace the OLPC (an educational platform) with Windows laptops (which have nothing to do with education), and does many, many other evil things. You're indirectly supporting the Gates Foundation, which looks like it's going to be as good for science as Microsoft has been for software.

Microsoft couldn't do it without its employees, i.e. you. You're enabling Microsoft, and in my view, you are partly responsible for its continued ability to wreak havoc on the world. Don't you feel like a sociopath?