Slashdot Mirror


Sweden's Vote on OOXML Invalidated

Groklaw Reader writes "Just days after Microsoft's attempt to buy the Swedish vote on OOXML came to light, SIS declared its own vote invalid. The post at Groklaw references a ComputerWorld article with revelations from Microsoft: 'Microsoft Corp. admitted Wednesday that an employee at its Swedish subsidiary offered monetary compensation to partners for voting in favor of the Office Open XML document format's approval as an ISO standard. Microsoft said the offer, when discovered, was quickly retracted and that its Sweden managers voluntarily notified the SIS, the national standards body. "We had a situation where an employee sent a communication via e-mail that was inconsistent with our corporate policy," said Tom Robertson, general manager for interoperability and standards at Microsoft. "That communication had no impact on the final vote." ...'"

8 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. What's Inconsistent by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    e-mail that was inconsistent with our corporate policy

    What's inconsistent with Microsoft's policy is getting caught doing this.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  2. Re:SIS press release translated by ILikeRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is interesting to me is that Microsoft still gets caught cheating in email all these years after the anti-trust scandals. I'm sure their lawyers are pulling their hair out trying to get the managers to stop sending things like this by email. They have a corporate culture of cheating, and they reward it internally, and it is indisputably part of what made them successful, but it has also become such a normal state of affairs that they have problems hiding it. Pretty amusing that such a relatively old technology is their continual downfall.

    --
    I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
  3. Microsoft still wins. by dweller_below · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bottom line:

    Microsoft failed in it's attempt to buy a 'YES' vote from Sweden.

    Microsoft successfully used it's money to turn Sweden's 'NO' vote into an 'ABSTAIN' vote.

    Miles

  4. How can they call this a standard? by AxelTorvalds · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Whether or not they buy a vote seems almost immaterial to me. You know vendors tend to have seats on a lot of these types of standards committees and there is always a lot of personal protection going on. You'll never see Cisco at an IETF meeting backing something Cisco hasn't built already or backing something that is alternative to what Cisco is doing unless they've already decided to do it and by then they've usually built one.. IBM usually has an agenda before they get to ANSI or ISO or whatever the standards group is. Every company is that way. The smart ones go out of their ways to document the ever loving hell out of their technologies too so that it stands a better chance in these standards meetings and the really smart ones are open to accepting new ideas for their technology so that it can be standardized and have some consensus. (Do you really want to fight some obscure issue, of just ammend your standard to include it and make another company vote for it as a friend and supporter of the standard?)

    What's more alarming to me is that there is simply no way that OOXML is a rational standard, the voters clearly are not expert at it, nobody is backing it with an alternative implementation. I don't even believe an alternative implementation is really possible at this point, it's just not clear to me. Can you imagine how the internet wouldn't even exist if IETF standards were approached this way? It is very clear to me that the folks voting on this standard have not read it, it's 7000 pages, there simply isn't a way that they did. I don't want to out right just bash MS but they came late to the game and they simply have no track record of pushing for open standards, it's almost against their very nature. To ramrod this though will ultimately just undermine what it means for something to be "standard" and standards committee members should be aware of that, this won't make OOXML the standard so much as it will undermine the very concept of a standard for this technology. The fact that nobody on the committee is putting the brakes on to me indicates just how broken this comittee is and that the standard should be either dropped or restarted. If they aren't taking is seriously, then let's just kill the standard, I'd rather have none than a bullshit one.

    Open document formats is something that is fairly important. I bet you'd have trouble dealing with a lot of common document formats from just 15 years ago. Anyone process Wordperfect 4.2 and 5 files? How about Wordstar? Multimate anyone? Sure you can probably find a way to important them and make them usable but what about in another 5 years? As we digitize more documents, right now, we're almost making sure that in 100 years this will be a dark spot in history because they won't be able to process what records may exist, if they can get them off of the media (if the media is even good) It's good for mankind to produce some well defined, open and sane standards, it's also pretty good for business, how many formats does Office currently try to support? How much does that cost? Imagine if Office 2015 only supported like 3. I don't know what kinds of numbers MS spends on it, I'm guessing millions of dollars a year just on supporting Office file formats though and I couldn't imagine it really impacting the use of Office, it's a fine piece of software. I really don't even care if it's properly documented OOXML instead of the OASIS/OO.org XML format, it just needs to be properly documented and that documentation needs to be vetted before a vote happens. Maybe that's what MS really wants but these committee members are representing corporate interests as well as national ones in some cases and I can't possibly see how they can justify the job they are doing. No standard is better than a really fucked up one.

    1. Re:How can they call this a standard? by bwt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nobody is backing it with an alternative implementation

      Nobody is backing it with ANY implementation. Stéphane Rodriguez documented several non-trivial ways that MS Office fails to conform to OOXML. The purpose for MS is to waive their ISO standard around when government organizations try to insist on open standard file formats in procurement policy. The whole thing is disgusting. This may be the lowest I've ever seen MS stoop.

      nobody is backing it with an alternative implementation
      The sad thing here is that MS is succeeding at showing that the credibility of the standards creation process is defective. Simply put, there aren't any standards for standards.

  5. Re:No impact... by p2sam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sweden was ranked #6 in the 2006 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. Perhaps they wouldn't do so well next year.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

  6. You sure about that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least they're fixing it. Sure, it'd be great if nothing had gone wrong to begin with, but things will and it's important to know that someone will do something about it, so I'll give Sweden some respect for that.

    Meanwhile, something like 40 countries have just decided that they want "P" status in the ISO (i.e. to be able to vote). Most, if not all, of them have gotten stuffed to the gills with Microsoft Partners who joined recently.

    So it's not just Sweden, and it remains to be seen whether these other countries will be able to do anything in time, or whether the ISO will get turned into a Microsoft puppet. Now *there* is a scary thought. No further standards without Microsoft's blessing? Ouch! I don't think they'll give up on the power they're gaining from this any time soon, not given how much money it must've cost to run a global campaign like this.

    1. Re:You sure about that? by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it remains to be seen whether these other countries will be able to do anything in time, or whether the ISO will get turned into a Microsoft puppet. Now *there* is a scary thought.
      That is precisely what is going to happen, and yes, it is scary.

      Once, Microsoft had an unchallenged monopoly on the desktop. They didn't have to bother with standards; standards didn't matter, since Microsoft could basically unilaterally decide what actually was used in IT. "ISO shmISO", as they might say in these parts.

      Then, something strange happened - some governments decided they cared about standards after all, and things like ODF looked like they might get a foothold. Therefore Microsoft started to 'standardize' their offerings: .NET, and now OOXML. To ensure this process succeeds, they have to control the standard-governing bodies, and given their historical lack of shame and endless pockets, they will simply buy them. And this is exactly what we see happening.

      The first step for Microsoft is to get its products stamped as 'standards'. The next is to prevent competing projects from getting stamped as such. I expect to see, within a decade or so, that Microsoft products all carry ISO and ECMA logos, while Linux, OpenOffice, etc. will get derided by media shills as "those products that don't implement important international standards like OOXML, MicrosoftHTML, MicrOSoftIX, MS-DB" and other things I can't imagine right now, but I am sure Microsoft strategists will.