Microsoft's OOXML trophy is conditional
Those that giveth can also taketh away
THE COVETED international standard gong which the ISO awarded to Microsoft's OOXML could be retracted if the software giant starts getting mean over patents it has invested in the standard, the organisation said today.
Otherwise, the body expects Microsoft's OOXML and the open source ODF document formats to face one another in a direct competition for "survival". The outcome will be decided by the market, it said.
In the wake of Microsoft's promise to make its OOXML specification freely available (a move that has been met with scepticism), the International Standards Organisation issued a statement today that said how it would hold Microsoft to its promise, with the most severe of penalties for any shirking.
The ISO said how its patent policy demanded that licences were awarded on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.
"If, after publication of the standard, it is determined that licences to all required patents are not so available, one option would be to withdraw the International Standard," it said.
If Microsoft doesn't misbehave, the standards body said that the standards would be left to prove themselves: "After a period of co-existence, it is basically the market that decides which survives," a spokesman said.
The market had already determined through the ISO voting procedures that OOXML would become an official international standard, it said.
The statement also said that it had put OOXML into its fast-track for adoption after it was proposed by Ecma International, the commercial custodian of the standard. µ
Comments
Fair Votes?
"The market had already determined through the ISO voting procedures that OOXML would become an official international standard, it said."Yea right, from what I have read this was pushed through like crap through a goose and lubricated all the way by Microsoft $$.
They admit it was fixed
"The market had already determined through the ISO voting procedures that OOXML would become an official international standard, it said."So the votes were paid for then!
Market Decide?
This was bought and paid for, even the PR after the fact is being bought and paid for.It's like saying this: you can have 2 forms of gasoline. One form is from the company that holds 90% of the market in automobiles. The other is from a company that provides gas that will run in all cars. Now the 90% market share company makes it difficult to put the gas nozzle in the cars thus making it nearly impossible to put gas into the automobile.
Essentially, they are saying that a company with 90% share of the market that is stacking the deck in their favor is going to fall by the wayside in favor of another standard that is being intentionally subverted by the 90% market share company?
They are trying to tell us that market conditions are going to allow the other company's product to take over? Are these people daft? Do they not understand that 90% ownership means there is no competition? Therefore nothing can supplant the 90% share if a standards body can't get it straight?
This is precisely the reason why the ISO standards process needs to stand above and go beyond in an effort to ensure the protection of the people. That's the purpose. It isn't to create standards. We can see this by virtue of other Microsoft standards that were voted down having to do with graphics, math formulas, etc. Not to mention that Microsoft subverted this process by incorporating those same formats (that were denied standardization) into the OOXML format. Not to mention the fact that this is not an open standard in that it can't be platform independent because IE (which a portion of the implementation relies on) is tied to the standard making it Windows specific--you can't be immune from a law suit unless you implement it in full--no partial implementation allowed.
And, why on earth are these people doing this? It makes absolutely no sense. The defense of Microsoft in this case is absurd. It is impossible to believe that these people are so grotesquely stupid that they can't figure this out on their own.
They are also speaking with a forked tongue. Here's the reason. Microsoft needs it's OOXML to come into good favor with the governments. Once the idea of OOXML being a standard gets out governments will then invest in Microsoft's product, because Microsoft holds 90% market share, and they are the only ones going to be able to implement this. Remember the coven to not sue has to do with a "complete implementation" of the OOXML spec. So partial implementations won't work--and Microsoft is the only one that isn't going to get sued by Microsoft--Microsoft v. Microsoft--meaning they are the only company that can implement a partial spec.
But that's not the half of it. Governments are like snails. They travel at a very slow pace. So, even if the standardization is overthrown it will take a long time to do it and Microsoft will be right there with their money using it to buy favors to influence the process again. As well, the governments that have adopted the file format will be committed to it and would hardly back out of it in favor of another file format due to a number of issues.
This is why the ISO certification is so utterly important. Microsoft knew they only needed to get some sort of ISO standard adopted and nothing would be able to slow the momentum toward it's product once the adoption started.
As well, once governments begin to require the format as the one they use then any organization that interacts with the government will also be required to adopt it. The law firm that represents you must use it to submit their documents, any one submitting any sort of paperwork will be required. Do you think that a loss of the standard will then free up these other entities to switch at any ole time?
Sheesh, it sounds like these are press releases from Microsoft.
And companies such as the Inquirer shit on companies such as nVidia, yet you won't come straight out and call a spade a spade. Let's have some real editorialization on why this is a no go and why this Microsoft PR announcement is total bunk.
the “Impostrous Skimmers Order”.
"If, after publication of the standard, it is determined that licences to all required patents are not so available, one option would be to withdraw the International Standard,"Unless MS greases a few more key palms...
Pray then WHY IS THIS GOING THOUGH THE FAST TRACK PROCESS INSTEAD OF THE NORMAL REVIEW PROCESS??? The “OOXML standard” is still not complete (and has currently swollen to over 6000 pgs, making it unmanageable for use as an easily-implemented international standard), has not yet been published in final form, many objections to problems with this format have been voiced and not addressed, many “voting irregularities” are surfacing (and a selection of key people have apparently been made suddenly richer financially, and suddenly poorer, morally) and only licensing "promises" have been murmured by MS, yet our corrupt (and no loner virginal) ISO committee lets this incomplete crap go though the fast track process, apparently to allow MS to benefit financially while trying to bump off an already established ISO standard, ODF. What a travesty of justice: the financially-fueled “war of the standards”.
We should officially change the organization's name into a old-boys club that reflects its apparent purpose: the “Impostrous Skimmers Order”.
ISO and the Deathly Embrace
The whole OOXML voting process was skewered from the beginning, and Microsoft has used its usual clout and dark alley tactics to push it through.In politics, it would have been showering money, coke and easy girls, but this being IT, it just needed some readily-available brainwashed n00bs to go do the work for them.
Decidedly, anything Microsoft touches sees its purity shrivel and die. It's disgusting that it gets away with it like that. There should be an international law against such things.