Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's 'Men in Black' Kill Florida Open Standards Legislation
A NewsForge article was handed to us talking about pressure Microsoft recently brought to bear on a piece of Florida legislation. A few short paragraphs in Senate bill 1974 added by Rep. Ed Homan discussed the need for open data formats, but Microsoft's men in black responded by pressuring legislators and staff employees about the bill's language. "A legislative staff employee who would lose his job if he were quoted here by name said, 'By the time those lobbyists were done talking, it sounded like ODF (Open Document Format, the free and open format used by OpenOffice.org and other free software) was proprietary and the Microsoft format was the open and free one.' Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft's interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals. Note that lobbyists for IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Novell -- the only three companies with a major interest in open source who have registered lobbyists in Florida -- did not weigh in on this matter." Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
Actually I don't think it would be. Microsoft are legally allowed to contribute to campaigns (in certain ways, and under certain limitations), and they are not obligated to continue to give donations to people they previously gave to. They can certainly state their displeasure at certain actions those people might take, and not give them any more donations. (IANAL)
I live in Florida and this infuriates me! I DO NOT want MS bossing around my legislators. So a call to action for those who care about this. Write a letter to the Representative Ed Homan. Feel free to copy my template.
Capitol Office:
317 House Office Building
402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
Phone: (850) 488-3087
District Office:
Suite 311
9385 N. 56th Street
Temple Terrace, FL 33617-5505
Phone: (813) 983-3330
Legislative Assistant:
Janet Roder
District Secretary:
Paula Tonelli
Representative Ed Homan,
I am writing to express my extreme displeasure with the recent successful lobbying efforts by Microsoft regarding Senate Bill 1974. As a tax payer of this state I am disgusted that the Congress of this state would cave to the wants and desires of a monopolistic company who have no intentions of serving the people or the state but only seek to increase their already enormous financial wealth. I am huge proponent of open standards and open software. The prospect of having open source software running on government computers is highly desirable. Millions of tax payer dollars could be saved by switching to free operating systems such as Ubuntu Linux (www.ubuntu.com) and switching to free office solutions like OpenOffice (www.openoffice.org). If Microsoft wants to have the governments use Microsoft products, they should donate them to the government and get a tax write off for it. I should not have to pay taxes so government employees can use substandard expensive software. When large monopolistic corporations send lobbyists to ensure the will of the Microsoft is fulfilled I should be able to have faith that my Congress will represent me accurately and realize the lies and untruths these lobbyists are spreading about open source software. Please consider ratifying the bill and rewriting it to embrace open standards and open source software. Thank you.
Doesn't exactly strike me as an open or up front method of passing legislation.
Advertising changes to a bill before you add them is not a common method of modifying bills. The process is as open as can be because everyone will get a chance to comment on it later. What's under the table is threatenting legislators to make sure the item is never talked about.
After what happened to Peter J. Quinn, everyone has every right to fear the Men in Black. In that case they:
What policy was that? you might ask. It was simply to use a cheaper, more reliable and more open alternative to M$ Office. Peter Quinn was crucified for thinking his state could save money and have their documents available in digital form 100 year from now if they simply moved away from the M$ domination. For this correct assertion, his reputation and career were damaged.
M$'s efforts are both civil and criminal violation and those responsible should be held accountable.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How the hell is this insightful? It's even a blatant lie. Microsoft WAS convicted, even if they weren't punished: http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit019.html
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Actually, while I'm sure they are concerned about OO, I don't think they are that concerned.
It winning the competition that is at stake, it is owning the ground on which the competition takes place, and therefore being able to set the rules.
Any time you have a piece of technology that connects two things, owning that technology gives you power over those two things. It's like being a medieval baron with a castle that controls a strategic trade route. It may not be obvious at first, but file formats are a connective technology. They connect the present use of data with the future use of data. An organization that owns a "de facto standard" file format is in the position to directly, dictate which software will be used in the future.
This issue is much bigger than OO.org. If MS does not control the format in which information is saved, then literally anybody can sell software to their customers. It could be OO, it could be Lotus, it could be Sun or Oracle.
As long as they control the format, they can keep their customers on the upgrade merry-go-round, and by extension keep OO.org and others from becoming more significant than they find convenient. They can also forestall the emergence of potentially disruptive technologies, for example intranet based office automation, until it suits them.
It all comes down to the ability of a single vendor to control the future. There is no single point of control that offers a better leverage over the entire software industry than office formats.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Okay, here ya go. It's the "Conclusions of Law" in the United States vs Microsoft case. Quoting from the Orders:
Happy now? (No, didn't think so.)
-- Alastair
I work in project planning and management, mainly in heavy engineering, rail and mining. To do these jobs properly, you need a set of plans and schedules for things like safety, environment, quality etc, which become the core documents for all of the companies and teams working on the project.
A while ago, I wrote a tool to help analyse the details of scopes of work, contracts and client correspondence and output the result into a set of plans which comply with the contract, legislation and relevant standards. Currently, the tool outputs text files (.csv for spreadsheet data), which are then imported into MS Word or Excel, formatting, diagrams and charts are added, and the documents are shared. A lot of that information is then entered into MS Project, and costs and schedules developed.
The tool would be much more valuable if it could directly output formatted documents. It would be much more valuable if it could open and parse structured input documents such as org charts and project schedules. With ODF or a similar open format in common use, this tool would make project documents more quickly, there'd be less errors, and the documents would be more consistent. The tool is currently only for in-house use, since the text files it produces require a level of expertise to work with. With an open document format, I'd be able to make the tool suitable for release to other teams. Planners would be able to collaborate better with project managers, suppliers etc.
As it is with Microsoft's monopoly and format lockin, this tool has laid latent as an in-house tool for nearly a decade, and I'm sure it's only one of many. Every time I see results like this one in Florida, it's like a kick in the gut, because that's the real cost of Microsoft's dirty behaviour. Every project which uses half-arsed tools like Word costs more. Every project incurs more risk. Downstream customers pay more for their products, and so it goes on.
That's the real world cost, not the pissy few bucks MS gets as a result of their standover tactics.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."