New York Jumps Into Open Formats Fray

cyrusmack writes "Hot on the heels of the bad news regarding the defeat of all open formats bills, New York has become the latest in an area that has seen a flurry of activity already this year. In the article on InfoWorld, it's pretty clear that this bill is significantly watered down from what other states have attempted to do this year. You can bet Microsoft will be there in force, just as it has been elsewhere."

Comments

One Missing Weapon

[Erris]

Cool Stuff that people want.

The rest is all bullshit. Vendor manipulation, marketing, bogus laws are only needed by a company that lacks product. The harder they try, the weaker they look.

The tipping point is here. If Dell makes money selling GNU/Linux desktops, it's all over for M$. If they don't, someone else will. Firefox has proved free software to all the "decision makers" M$ usually courts, and it's only a matter of time before they realize Firefox and much more works better outside the M$ cage.

Re:One Missing Weapon

[ozmanjusri]

If Dell makes money selling GNU/Linux desktops, it's all over for M$. If they don't, someone else will.

It's already happening where I live.

Most of the wholesalers and whitebox distributors here are offering budget computers with Ubuntu installed. They're cheaper and perform better than the Windows equivalents.

Dell can survive without offering a Linux alternative since they pay little or nothing for their Windows licenses, but they risk being swamped by the next wave of boxshifters if they hold back too long.

Re:open formats win, MS loses

[WindBourne]

Why fund your enemy so they can subsidize their shoddy products?

That is the funny thing. They all use it and keep their premire products on windows rather than doing better on Linux, so ppl have no reason to leave it. Once the premire products on Linux, then you will see a slow trickle explode.

Re:ya..

[siddesu]

1. It is not about ODF, it is about a usable open standard with available usable implementation. ODF naturally fits the bill. If there was something else available, it would have been on the table.

2. Yes, open format document is easy to spot -- if you get it into your email box regardless of the OS, and can open it with tools from several different vendors without trouble, it is probably open. Sorta like PDF or ODF.

3. There are a lot of good explanations on the web about it, try your favourite search engine.

http://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl=en&q=ODF+vs +OpenXML&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ODF+vs+OpenXML&ei =UTF-8&fr=moz2
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=ODF+vs+OpenX ML&sourceid=Mozilla-search&form=CHROME

bullshit

[nanosquid]

Increasingly, [open formats] means

"Open formats" is a well-defined term. It means what it has always meant: a format that is unencumbered by copyrights or patents, and is sufficiently well documented to permit interoperable, independent implementations.

Of course, Microsoft has been trying to muddy the waters by calling their closed, proprietary format "open".

using this term is one of the best ways we can bring down Microsuck

Well, yes, in the sense that Microsoft's business model is monopolistic and involves closed formats. If Microsoft adopted open formats themselves, then things would be fine.

Ultimately, this may mean more leverage for one or a group of interests--something that is never good for a dye-in-the-wool open source believer.

Adoption of open formats, in the usual meaning of the word, is not just good for open source, it's good for the industry as a whole (except, of course, for Microsoft).

What is bad for everybody other than Microsoft is Microsoft's attempts to confuse people about what an open format is. ODF is an open format, OOXML is a closed, proprietary format.

Open source/format is such a misunderstood term

Well, yes. Quantum mechanics is also such a misunderstood term. Nevertheless, both "open format" and "quantum mechanics" have important, well defined meanings, and the responsibility is on you to understand and use them correctly.

Re:bullshit

[ozmanjusri]

All those slashdot patent stories do not seem to have Microsoft astroturfers, but this one is thick with them.

Yep, and the GPL3 stories seem to draw a lot of flies as well. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/07/149 240

Makes you think the FSF might be on the right track after all.

Re:bullshit

[perlchild]

Any claim that it is an "open standard" is blatently false. There are commands in it like "work like Word 95", yet the standard does not include the source code to Word 95. Well, you say, just ignore that command, it's a minor detail, right? But that is exactly why those office documents come out mangled. It is in fact exactly the same as .doc format and it is pretty clear that inability to accurately transcribe .doc format is the main reason there is no competition to Word.

I'm sorry, but why can't we just define that the ooxml format either drop the "works like word 95" clause or abandon the claim to be an open format?

My understanding of an open format(and I might be naive from your point of view, but it's my opinion) is that 100%, not 99.9%, of what the format can include, has to be open, for it to deserve the term.

Maybe Microsoft is just afraid they can only compete with a completely backwards-incompatible(that is, a format that finally can be read 100% in other programs), instead of what they have now, a format that people have to keep old versions of programs, just to read old documents, since even Microsoft doesn't provide 100%, works all the time, in all cases, backward compatible import formats.

Re:bullshit

[CastrTroy]

I really don't see what MS is so afraid of. MS Office is a great tool. Even if it used ODF, I think a lot of people and businesses would stick with it over OpenOffice, or any of the other alternatives. However, MS Office is too expensive for people that just want to use a word processor at home, and do some simple formatting with maybe a couple tables. They wouldn't be losing much money from these people since most of them just pirate word, use the $30 version that came with their PC, or use some alternative like OpenOffice.

Re:Fair Enough?

[nanosquid]

OpenXML has/is being implemented by 3rd parties.

Wrong. Third parties are implementing parts of OOXML and trying to do the best they can, but nobody other than Microsoft can ever create a complete implementation because the behavior of OOXML is defined in terms of Microsoft software. The situation isn't much different from current Microsoft Office formats: others try to support them as best they can, but nobody has been able to create a fully interoperable implementation.

So you're saying you know for a fact that there are no patents covering anything in the ODF standard?

I'm saying that I know for a fact that Microsoft has applied for a patent on OOXML, while nobody has applied for a patent on ODF.

If so why did Sun produce a convenant not to sue ODF developers?

Because that gives people additional assurance that Sun doesn't have any hidden agenda when it comes to ODF; you don't actually need Sun's covenant unless you're paranoid. With OOXML, Microsoft's agenda isn't even hidden, and without Microsoft's covenant, you'd definitely be screwed.

GPL3 Microsoft 'Open' XML

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole problem with Microsoft's chosen 'open' format, is they are asserting IP claims over it. So it's open only in the sense you can license it from Microsoft on disadvantageous terms if it's to Microsoft's advantage to let you.

If Microsoft is truely interested in open standards, they should GPL3 their format as proof that it's an open standard. Instead of this part disclosure, lots of behind the scenes lobbying and money.

IF THEY CAN'T GPL IT, THEN IT'S NOT AN OPEN FORMAT.

Eternal source of campaign money!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Now it is almost clear to all the politicians. You got a never ending source of campaign money in Microsoft. I expect it will become almost a ritual. Every year, every state a band of legislators will send up balloons about ODF, and dutifully Microsoft will send its minions and tons of money. At some point MSFT will balk and that is the day real ODF legislation will emerge.

Slightly off-topic...

[TheRaven64]

While we're on the subject of open formats, the UK government released a statement yesterday on their use over here. Not definitive, but it sounds like they are putting the final decision in the hands of people who have a vested interest in open formats.

Mod Lying Parent Down

[asphaltjesus]

Mod parent way, way down. It's like I walked into the Steve Ballmer Reality Distortion Field.

Plus since 99.9% of the rest of the world still uses .doc format government and everyone else will still have to use MS Office & MS Windows.

What is so evil about this well-crafted statement is it manipulates the reader by doing the "everyone uses it" argument. When your Mom said, "If everyone you knew wanted to jump off a cliff, then I suppose you would jump too." when you wanted to do something justified by referring to your friend's activities. Maintaining closed standards is harmful, like jumping off a cliff.

The truth is everyone doesn't use it. Look at the standard document format in the American legal system. Most documents published on the web are in PDF and there's a Free (as in speech) pdf generator for every platform. Even windows. http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/

ODF is a great idea. But it is only a tiny step away from propriatary formats.

This statement is materially false. No patent encumbrances, no license encumbrances, no distribution encumbrances, and an API that a programmer can _actually_ use. versus Microsoft's API which should win an award for documents that say nothing.

Microsoft harms everyone who uses a computer by defending their closed document formats. Congratulations, you've blown the truthiness meter up.