Slashdot Mirror


UK Agency Files OOXML Complaint, EU Demurs

Christopher Blanc writes to let us know that although BECTA, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, has filed a complaint with EU regulators about Microsoft's business practices, the European Commission won't be doing anything particular about it. BECTA claimed that the OOXML format discourages competition. BECTA lodged a similar complaint with the UK Office of Fair Trading last October. A Commission press officer said, "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint already and we are not treating it as a formal complaint to us."

7 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. BECTA by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those that don't know Becta is a UK organisation that acts to advice the nations schools on their IT strategies.

    It doesn't have any formal powers from what I understand in forcing schools to or not to use certain technologies however it does produce a list of Becta authorised providers which some schools will choose only to work with.

    That said it has a lot of power in the UK educational arena and has always been quite pro-open source on many occasions, it's still recommending against Office 2007 in schools and as such has been quite successful in warding many schools off switching to Office 2007.

    It's not the most powerful organisation there is and it doesn't really have any power over standards, but it's very influental in UK education and if Microsoft pisses them off enough I could very well imagine them making an ever stronger drive towards open source to the point they will likely put together resources that make it easy for schools to make the switch.

    Some areas of local goverment, schools and in some cases, university policy is largely based around what Becta recommends in the UK.

  2. Re:some standards are more equal than others by genican1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    One doc standard, ODF, is cool; another, OOXML is somehow evil. A truly bizzare thought process. One of them is actually open.
  3. Re:So let me get this right by Danse · · Score: 5, Informative

    The complaint is that the format is a standard in name only (i.e., it is vague and difficult to implement). Actually, it's more than difficult, it's currently impossible for anyone but Microsoft to implement it, and even they can't seem to do it.
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  4. Re:Pay off. by flnca · · Score: 5, Informative
    Just read the last sentence of the article:

    "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint already..." Microsoft is currently facing another EUR 899 million fine for not following EU antitrust regulations ( BBC article ). Recently, I read an article that mentioned explicitly that OOXML is already being investigated as yet another cause of concern. They're looking into it!
  5. Re:some standards are more equal than others by holloway · · Score: 4, Informative

    OOXML isn't open due to the poor quality of the specification. Where the specification is vague or completely undefined it means that defacto standards will step in and that's how Microsoft Office maintains its monopoly. Here's my list of example remaining problems in OOXML that will result in the ISO promoting a defacto commercial application, Microsoft Office.

  6. Re:some standards are more equal than others by holloway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hi,

    They've either documented or removed those 'behaveLikeWW8' style flags. As engineering criteria however the documentation hasn't been reviewed to see whether it accurately describes Microsoft Office, and it was added late in the process (early 2008, I think).

    What remains however are Microsoft OLE references without documentation or patent coverage, accessibility problems, and huge areas of OOXML entirely without documentation that mean that ISO OOXML promotes defacto standards.

    Read my blog for a few posts on how no one voting on OOXML saw a final specification.

  7. Re:Pay off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the article is FUD. Becta never asked that it's complaint be
    treated as a new complaint. It asked that it be added to the already
    existing complaint regarding OOXML. It has been.

    Here is what Becta said in its statement announcing it had sent its
    complaint already filed with the UK antitrust regulator to the EU
    Commission:

    "Following discussions with the OFT, Becta has now referred its interoperability complaint and related evidence to the European Commission in support of the Commission's wider investigation."

    Someone decided to write an article as if Becta had been denied its
    complaint as being redundant. That isn't accurate. It was added to
    the other complaint about OOXML, which is *exactly what Becta asked for*.
    Somehow it gets turned around and described as some kind of Microsoft
    victory.

    Disgusted you say? Ditto.