Slashdot Mirror
A Look At MS's MA Talking Points
tbray writes "It may not be a Halloween Document, but one of the lobby groups in the thick of the Massachusetts office-doc standardization fray passed me 'The Other Side's Talking Points', so I've published (and slightly deconstructed) them with a barnyard-animal picture." From the article: "The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The proposed approach and process for use of XML data is quite open to multiple standards, yet the proposed standard for documents is quite narrow, preferential, and may not enable optimal use of the data-centric standards."
unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products
Somehow they never seem to object when, say, the Feds sole-source Microsoft products. Big surprise.
Let's hope someone throws that back into their faces....
There are less costly, less limiting, non-preferential policy options to achieve the same goals.
However, Microsoft is as unsure as you what these options are; they certainly aren't their products.
The fact is that choosing ANY file type narrows the field somewhat and whatever type is selected will give preference to someone. It makes the most sense to pick the type that does the least amount of "damage" in both fields.
Using an "open" format allows the docs to be read by users of pretty much any OS. Also, it gives preference to the open source community, not some corporation looking for nothing beyond profit. Finally, anyone that wants OpenOffice can get it, and for free. No other possiblity would be less narrow or preferential!
Microsoft Employees themselves are saying that open office formats (at least partially, or for old versions) are a good thing. Others are saying they want to quit soon. Note that this open revolt against their management is being spearheaded by the mysterious Mini-Microsoft.
Will these attitudes finally change MSFT from the bottom up, or just get these guys fired? I suspect the latter, but hey, we live in interesting times...
"limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others."
prohibits others? i know this is obvious to everyone here, but the fact that the oasis format is open and fully documented invalidates this argument. there is absolutely no reason why any vendor cant implement the oasis format.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
For those of you wondering who Tim Bray is or why you should read somebody's weblog, Tim Bray co-created XML. If anybody's fit to speak authoritatively on the subject of XML formats, then it's him.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
First, the format is called Open Document, not Open Office. Open Office is the program. Second, Massachusetts is not specifying any particular software, only that any software must read/write Open Document format. Everything, and I mean everything, that Microsoft claims in their so-called talking points is self-serving rubbish. Remember that reaching a compromise with Microsoft is like reaching a compromise with cannibals that they will only eat your right arm.
So isn't MA supposed to be providing service to its residents. Let's face it, do you want to be the one who has to train all these government employees how to use OpenOffice.
/. crowd, it is likely to gum up the works for some time in the state of MA. This doesn't even get into explaining to grandparents how to file/read state tax forms online. I think there are going to be a fair number of annoyed taxpayers.
Those the change may seem minor to the
I like open document types, but I think this is a bad way to try to handle things.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Massachusetts isn't using OpenOffice's format, it's using OpenDocument. This is an open format that OOo just happens to use as well. I understand OOo had a hand in creating it, but it's not "their" format. Here's the wiki link explaining it a little further
From Groklaw's article on the subject:
"Some may contend that the decision is unfairly dictating a software preference. This is entirely wrong; the guidelines make it clear that any applications need only support an open, unencumbered document format. Your guidelines do not limit any vendor's ability to compete for state business because the required open formats are available equally to all, and participation in their development is equally open to all."
However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others.
Oh please. Am I to understand that Open Office documents are blocked by things like patents, constantly changing specifications, no interoperability between versions, and licensing fees?
Oh, wait, that's MS Office! Open office standards are open? Free for all to use, if they choose?
Wow. Go figure.
All I know is I personally don't CARE what the format is, what's underneath, just friggin' well let it work with all damned Word processors!!!
RTF, HTML, XML, whatever. JUST MAKE IT WORK!!!
IT'S NOT OPENOFFICE.ORG'S FORMAT
It's simply an open XML format for storing data that the developers of OpenOffice.org developed and utilize. It would be simple to modify other word processing applications to use this format... or if they stick with MS (who claims an open format in the future) I'm sure OO.o will migrate to that format.
Just because they are considering moving to OO.o doesn't mean that they are giving unfair or preferential treatment to a specific vendor... you could be their vendor if you bid low enough! All they have done is researched and chose the best open format for storing thier data that has a usable application that utilizes it.
I would bet if MS moved to an open format, they would use that instead... their objective is to have readable documents in 50 years... not to get away from MS (yet).
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
From TFA:
This is probably not the best example. Yes, the average government worker could probably download NeoOffice/J free of charge as well and then convert all their documents to a newer format, but there is a cost here and it is in man hours - they aren't working for free.
This cost probably occurs every time Microsoft updates Office, though, so would likley be much the same whether they stuck with MS-Office or migrated to anything like OpenOffice.
Tim Bray is also an employee of Sun, the company who started OO.o. I agree with what he says & am quite sympathetic to the cause, but this is like Scoble saying MA should standardize on MS word format.
Openoffice comes with a wizard to do mass conversions. It can recursively sweep through a file structure, creating a .sxw file every time a .doc file is encountered (keeping the same name).
So this strengthens the point made by the author of the article:
.sxw files for every .doc file, why not give give it a test on some smaller portion of your folder tree.
"Unless the cost of conversion right now is awfully damn high, this sounds like a good investment."
To find this insanely under-hyped feature:
File -> AutoPilot -> Document Converter
If your file server has enough room for a bunch of new
Then you can all easily see how good OpenOffice is in it's conversions on your existing data RIGHT NOW, and everyone can learn firsthand how realistic a switch to OpenOffice REALLY is.
Aren't you dying to know first hand if it's actually just that easy and we can all quit theorizing about how viable this whole thing is?
Okay than.... which open XML data standard with accompanying open-source software to use it do you suggest the state of Massachusetts start looking at?
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
I don't see why the fact that he co-created XML would make him any more fit to speak about what needs to be done. It's just a simple fallacy.
cheers
MA is using the OpenDocument format, not OpenOffice's format.
OpenDocument is not vendor-specific. Anyone can use it. The only reason MS doesn't want to support it in Word is because they know that allowing people to use a non-Word format would make it easy for people to switch away from Word.
Massachusetts has been going down this road a long time; it's not just something that appeared out of nowhere and they've already done some work weighing the various options. I don't think MS is going to be able to change things with FUD this late in the game.
It's worth noting that parts of Massachusetts have already changed over. Saugus started going this route some years ago; you can see Saugus' official response to the state's announcement or my entry in the Saugus blog discussing the same.
Saugus has been pushing free and open software since the mid to late '90s. Massachusetts developed an "open source trough" for use by all state departments a couple of years back. Switching to open formats is just a natural step along the path that Massachusetts has been heading for quite some time now.
Actually the new rules say that Open Formats should be provided in addition to whatever other format of choice is used. But have no fear, the representatives of my state are likely to comply with the wishes of M$ and people like you. Those corrupt bastards are just looking for some backstratching from M$
Simply replace "Open Document Format" with ASCII and you will see clearly how rediculous the argument is from Microsoft. I know the analogy isn't perfect. Damn close, though.
In light of your sig, I would suggest not posting while drunk as well. Otherwise, you write stuff like this.
the OO format is open. MS does not document anything about their format. Neither does WP or Ami Pro. Every thing that is known about all of them, is from reverse engineering. That is not a good way to preserve data.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
hey, i was quoting FROM THE SUMMARY. so don't bitch at me.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
For what it's worth, MA is not really asking for open-source software behind the standard--they just want an open standard...
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
Ballmer: Just tell me it's not Open Office. It's not Open Office, is it?
Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Yes.
(chair flies through air) CRASH....
Ballmer: I WILL KILL MOTHERFUCING OPEN OFFICE! WordPerfect tried to get me, but I fucked them one good. I will fucking kill Open Office.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
A Microsoftie mentioning Mel's story?
Wow! I mean really WOW!
Amazing!
Somebody at one of those associations knows somebody who's on a mailing list with me and thus I got these talking points; I can't say for sure who wrote them, but I can guess. Let's give them a look, then walk through point by point.
.
Yep, nothing like first-hand information. So now, I've read this from a guy who posted an article based on information he got from a guy on a mailing list who knows a guy... I'm confused already.
I see that Microsoft reported 7.915 billion profit on $11.013 billion in revenues for "Information Worker" products (i.e. Office).
. .
But (see previous discussion) there will also be some pay-offs; you take the pain now or you support a 72% profit margin forever.
This is rather trivial, but I should point out that profit margin is calculated as profit/cost (cost to the producer, not the consumer). The cost to the producer (Microsoft) would be their $10.013 billion in revenues, minus their $7.915 billion profit.
This makes for a profit margin of 255%. In other words, they're getting back more than 2-1/2x what their paying in. Not a bad return on investment, if you ask me.
Sent from my computer.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
MA was there 100 years ago and most likely will be around 100 years from now. What about Microsoft?
I don't care if MS owns the spec for my document files as long as all competing products can open/save my files like they were native to that application.
IMHO portability is the most important issue here.
Huh? There are 7 programs that have implemented OD support in a stable release. Open Office is not one of them. How is this an OOo format?
And no, Microsoft is *not* moving to an open format. It is not documented and other programs can't read it without reverse engineering. That's not very good for data security or stopping vendor lock-in.
Markup is profit/cost.
ex. $1 items sells for $1.50. Margin is 0.50/1.50, or 33%. Markup is 0.50/1.00, or 50%. One cannot have a margin of more than 100%.
The original statement, that MS had a 72% margin, is correct.
This is high school business stuff.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Here is the weblog of the Microsoft developer (Brian Jones) who is in charge of their Office file format. These two entries deserve particular hatred for their complete failure to address the issues about openness brought up (repeatedly) in the comments.
Brian has made it clear that he just won't listen, but if you have time it would be good if you could add your voice to the comments on his blog calling for true openness.
David Wheeler on why opendoc won: link
"i was to lazy to verify the information given to me [despite the link] before i offered an opinion about it."
;P
that's not a very good excuse
sum.zero
Hey--I drink the kool-aid. I've given money for the development of OO.o and Abiword. (You should to--see my URL.) But I know self-interest when I see it.They were well-represented at OASIS & They have had it in beta for a long time.
"limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others."
I think they mean that it prohibits other formats. That is, of course, what a good specification does.
Even this generous interpretation is an exaggeration that reeks of M$'s characteristic dishonesty. Specifying a format for document exchange and archival will not keep anyone from using their favorite editor. They will simply have to copy that document into an editor that will save in the correct format. M$, of course, wants the more clueless lawmakers to arrive at your conclusion - that somehow this is giving a Sun an exclusive fromat franchise. As you pointed out, the standard is free for the taking, so M$ can quickly tack on the format translator and stick it into a Windoze update. Because the standard was developed in the open, M$ has only M$ to blame for their lack of product today.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft prohibits open source implementations of their format. Unless anyone expects Wordperfect Office to make a spectacular comeback, that means that Microsoft's format is closed enough that none of its largest competitors will be able to support it. Anyone can support OpenDocument though.
Look, the OO file standard is open! Nothing is keeping MS from supporting it. Let's face it; whatever esoteric shit that they claim that the OO XML format doesn't support is probably nothing that normal users would run into anyway. Add a new import/export filter to MS Office to support the OO format. And, if MS Office is as great as they say it is, there would be way more people that would use it instead of Open Office; they would just read/save their work in something other than the native MS Office format.
Or isn't MS Office really all that great?
I have to say it even though I'll probably get troll rated, people who consistently appologize for corporations have a vested interest in that company and therefore there opinions are worthless because it is biased.
The fact is Microsoft can use and contribute to the OASIS OpenDocument format if they want to, it is not Openoffice.org centeric. The reverse is not true.
As to MS "open" format; too little too late: once OASIS, a true open standards body finished its work, MS alternative was made obsolete.
the subject says it all. ive been using it for a long time and never felt the need ms office. the only area where one may have problems is in business. but if one is a home user, save urself the $400 and use it.
Nothing to stop them from Embrace...Extend...Extinguish either.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You might want to read that again. According to the Wiki, OO.o was in fact a participator in standardization of the specification, and both the latest 1.1rc and 2.0 beta OpenOffice releases support the format. I don't know if the stable releases support it, but if not it's only a matter of time, and government moves slow enough to wait. It helps that there are already other (stable) programs that support it, like Koffice.
Screw talking with them. They just keep repeating the same old lies over and over. The time for talking is over. Let's just bring them down.
coldfire
"The direction toward interoperability using XML data standards is clearly a good one. However, limiting the document formats to the OpenOffice format is unnecessary, unfair and gives preferential treatment for specific vendor products, and prohibits others. The proposed approach and process for use of XML data is quite open to multiple standards, yet the proposed standard for documents is quite narrow, preferential, and may not enable optimal use of the data-centric standards."
I had to re-read that line twice. I thought they were talking about Microsoft being preferential, narrow, etc, etc... not OpenOffice.
Can someone actually Orwellian-like bend their mind so that 2+2=5 for me, and explain the logic behind that statement where choosing an open standard over a closed-patented-licensed-EULA'd-sign with blood-give up your first born is a bad choice?
Or is this just what I think it is, one of Microsoft's "A Few Good Men" speeches:
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very OS that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a keyboard and start writing code. Either way, I don't give a damn what open standards you think you are entitled to."
I8-D
For a second, I picture Bill Gates as the evil, wealthy fat man with hat and moustache, selling equipment to farmers.
The farmers say: "We're tired of your lies. We're tired of you forcing us to pay fees for using your equipment. We want to use our own equipment."
"Hah, you must be joking... I have good relations with the industry, you couldn't even pass a quality test!" (curls moustache while talking and grinning)
Is it just me, or has anybody thought of this image, too?
I don't understand why it is so "assumed" by the author and most of the readers that there is something inherently wrong with a 72% profit margin. Many industries routinely mark up their final prices more than 1000% percent over cost - and that is perfectly justified as well. It's called capitalism... charge as much as you can get away with. Where is the crime?
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Every time you post an article like this, Ballmer kills a chair.
Please, think of the chairs!
Why are you telling him to read it again, and then confirming what he said? It's true that OO.o doesn't use OpenDocument in a stable release yet, because the version that does support it isn't stable yet.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"The OASIS OpenDocument format is, was, and always will be centered around OpenOffice.org. It is as much OOo's format as Microsoft's XML formats are Microsoft's."
BFD. It doesn't matter. Microsoft can have its special,more advanced XML format too. Just add the simple option of SAVE AS->OpenDocument to their Office suite. Now the user has a choice.
I think what should be done is the encouragement of open formats, and screw Microsoft. When clients complain, explain that Microsoft's history with its own formats are that it doesn't even stick to its own internal standards. I hope this is part of a trend by governments to start telling MS what is what, rather than letting Napoleon Gates and his pack of yes-men going around screwing the customer. There's no excuse other than pure greed for Microsoft's position, and it's pretty clear that the world is catching on. Close standards are a recipe for subservience to the monopolists in Redmond.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No they didn't. Only Sun Microsystems, IBM and Adobe Systems however did. Sponsoring OASIS is very different from sponsoring a certain TC. Why do I have repeat this every single time a new article about the OpenDocument comes along?
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
You must be new here.
Are you confused? So am I. The tacit assumption in TFA is that it's bad to switch away from Microsoft because they'd be locking themselves into a proprietary format... which is nothing at all like Microsoft .doc, .xls, .ppt, or any other Microsoft format. They're wiiiiiiide open, aren't they?
Are they joking? OpenOffice uses a (surprise surprise) open format. Microsoft is free to develop their own converters if they like. The format is freely available for their use. That also means that any other vendor that wants to support OpenOffice file formats can do so with equal ease. An open file format is really the antithesis of a proprietary format.
And let's not forget the very attractive price of OpenOffice.org itself: $0. Now, before you remind me that it costs money to install and maintain, I'll tell you that I already know that. But it's no harder to install or maintain than Office, works on a variety of platforms, and for 99% of the people who will use it, it does exactly what they need it to do. Why spend that much taxpayer money on Office if a free product can do the same thing?
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Notepad.
It doesn't get any more interoperable, does it? Well, except that CR+LF issue, but that's all Unix's fault! ;)
Well, for WP I have a developers kit laying around here with the complete and well explained structure of the WP file format.. It may be a little outdated, but unless they changed the format completely I think it would still get you started for some 90% as it was quite a flexible and scallable structure..
An no, this was not reverse-enginered, just bought from WP.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
so what? Microsoft sits on the w3c committee but how much of that do they actually implement? Just because they have a say a) doesn't mean it's implemented b) doesn't make it a Microsoft standard.... /me explodes!
too bad you are ac :)
thanks for the post anyway, reading these pages & following some links from them was really informative.
Rich
Contrary to the headlines, this article offers no new insight into Microsoft's points of contention. I am not a Micro$oft lover by any stretch of the imagination, (see? I spelled it with a '$'!), but I must admit that their points are valid, albeit a bit redundant or overestimated. But even so, the article's author mainly retorts to each point with simple-minded, vacuous comments that do nothing to enlightened nor explain, while showing his bias in full force.
The article could be summed up as such:
--------
1. We think MA made the wrong decision.
Bullshit. It is not the wrong decision, because it is the Right One.
2. We think it'll cost more to convert to the new format than they really expect.
Wrong. I'm sure they already took into consideration all the costs of conversion, so it won't be more than expected.
3. We think that choosing OpenDocument 1.0 gives preferential treatment to one vendor over another.
Bullshit. Choosing MS Office will give preference to one vendor.
4. We think giving preferential treatment to one vendor will hinder innovation.
Wrong. Choosing OpenDocument will not hinder innovation, because... it just won't.
5. There are alternatives that are cheaper and less limiting, that will not lock you into one single vendor's format.
This comment is bullshit, but since I couldn't really think of a reason, I'd say its because it makes no sense.
. In conclusion, we think that MA is doing a disservice to its citizens by choosing a format that is less functional and more restrictive than what they currently have. We can work with them to achieve all their goals while they continue giving us money.
This conclusion is all bullshit, because all they want is more money, when in fact the format Massachussets chose is the best one, although I won't say why; it just is. And since the original document was written by Microsoft it must be wrong!
--------
Final conclusion about the article: Just another "blogger" tootin' his own horn and [writing|talking] just to hear himself [type|speak].
Nothing to see here, move along.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
it is completely wrong. MS was noticably absent from the OpenDocument technical committee.
http://business.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=406
The Massachusetts state administration actually wanted to migrate to open source, not just open document formats. The concept and its economic justification were in place. However, Massachusetts' Republican governor Matt Romney is rumored to have personally intervened in order to get that plan substantially diluted. I heard that from someone in Massachusetts who saw the state government's original plan.
Romney is close to Bush, and the Bush administration is close to Microsoft. More importantly, Romney has ambitions to run for president in three years, and he may have decided that he needs to be on good terms with Microsoft since Microsoft's "Corporate Political Action Committees" are among the largest political donors in the US. In last year's primaries, Microsoft supported a variety of would-be Democratic candidates.
So to summarize,
Microsoft claiming that their propriatary standard is open, that any deviation from that would be too costly, and that Mas has no common sense is a load of Bullshit.
Can't say I dissagree.
But here at slashdot, pieces like this are kind of preaching to the quire... don't you think?
Send my love to El Presidente.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
The OpenOffice / OpenDocument format specification is missing some functionality alright -- but not a piece of functionality that any legitimate user or developer is ever likely to notice.
Closed document formats are how the likes of Microsoft introduce built-in obsolescence into a market where there is none. You can design a physical machine with moving parts, such as a VCR, car, printer, air conditioner, washing machine, hi-fi, gas boiler, garden strimmer or fridge to fail after a certain amount of time; and as long as it worked reasonably well up till then and you allowed a fair price per year of service, there is still a better-than-reasonable chance that the customer will buy another one off you. But you can't plant a time bomb in software: once a user has bought {or, even worse, pirated} it from you, then it will just work forever.
The only new feature in any version of Word since '97 {which was the last version I really used} seems to have been a new and incompatible document format. Sure there probably are one or two power user functions. But most people -- and I'm talking the kind who use spaces for doing page layout -- aren't going to notice any of them. All this kind of user will ever see is that they can't open files saved with their friends' newest versions of Word which came with their spanky new PCs, in their old version of Word. That's the only way in which Word 97 is "not good enough" for the overwhelming majority of users.
But the concept of an open and extensible document format, with graceful degradation, totally and unequivocally blows this plan out of the water. There is no way to hold customers' data to ransom if the format is open; and extensibility combined with graceful degradation makes the file format future-proof. Anyone could write an extension to an earlier version OpenOffice.org to support functionality introduced in a later version, or initially implemented in a closed-source derivative.
It's no wonder Microsoft don't like this. They must feel like someone who has managed to steal everything they needed to live on, since time immemorial; but then suddenly got caught and now has to pay for everything.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Just think of all the wasted energy that could have been diverted elsewhere if we had standardized on TeX, Postscript, or ??? many years ago. :-(
Sounds like Craig Mundie slinging DoMB FUD again.
That is truly unbelievable when most retail concerns are lucky if they can post 10-20% profits.
But MS is scared. They're losing their grip on the server side, particularly in the web server, database server areas. LAMP to the rescue.
Disruptive technologies are the bane of established companies. MS is in for a rude awakening.
I didn't click on any of the links, but I am amazed at how many there are.
This much work all about one slashdot poster must be fueled by strong emotions. My guess is that this is one of those crushes like 7-year-olds get where the admirer is mean to the admired in order to attract attention.
It might even be cute, if a pair of slashdotters in typing away in their moms' basements could ever be cute.
I understand this for uncompressed xml files: you can look at the XML text and if some has become garbage you can try to repair it with a text editor by omitting the garbage and matching up the missing element tags.
However, OpenDocument files are compressed Zip files.
Damaged zip files can become undecompressable, or the damage may decompress thoughout the file.
Doesn't that make OpenDocument files an unrecoverable binary format with respect to damage and repair?
(For archive purposes, governments will use other means to protect against damage and to perform repair, such as keeping multiple copies on separate media. I suspect repair is needed more for recent documents not yet archived. )
Why is Microsoft obsessed with XML? Massachussetts is choosing the OpenOffice format because it's open. The fact that it's based on XML is just one point in its favor.
It would be equally silly if Microsoft were to say that because their file format uses "binary ones and zeroes" which all computers can read, therefore it's open.
No, I don't want to explore the Recycle Bin.
Please note that OpenOffice.org had to change their file format to Open Document. This is the reason that OOo 2.0 had a different format than OOo 1.x. It is also the reason that a 1.1.5 update will be released to add Open Document compatibility for OOo 1.x users.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Sorry for the bitterness, but this is simply a Proposal, and the fact that Forbes quotes FT (which is a london-based publication) appears to be lazy, sensationalistic reporting. It seems likely to me that it will be PDF, which is already widely used in MA gov, and not OpenDocument, that will be seriously considered. I'd provide a link, but you just have to look at the language this article uses: "proposal," "report said," etc. This is simply political positioning (or posing, really) and not serious legislation. There was a similar proposal to switch to Open Office in a specific MA government office (I forgot which) earlier this year, and it fell on its face. (I beleive M$ offered them a steep discount)
...which is exactly what their "open" Office 12 formats are intended to do. Identical concept (XML and media files in a .zip file) to the actually-open OASIS OpenDocument formats, but of course with Microsoft's own special "we have to do this for Office97 documents" incompatibilities and the "GPL-Forbidden" terms for their "patent" licenses.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend