NZ, Sweden, Hungary Reflect OOXML Turmoil

A number of readers are sending news of the progress of Microsoft's attempt to get OOXML standardized by ISO. First off, New Zealand has voted "no" on the question. In Sweden, after the uproar following the "yes" vote there, a Microsoft representative has admitted buying Swedish OOXML votes (link in Swedish — follow the Read More... link below for some translated quotes). Computerworld has also picked up the Sweden story. Finally, from Hungary, reader ens0niq writes that the Minister of Economy and Transport has sent a letter to the General Director of the Hungarian Standards Institution requiring that the June 25 "yes" vote be re-done because of irregularities. Our correspondent notes, however, that many Microsoft partners have joined the voting committee in the meanwhile, so the result could be a replay of Sweden's experience.

Here are some quotes from the Swedish article translated by our anonymous correspondent.

-We have been informing our business partners about the process at SIS. What is going on, what the time plan is and that Microsoft thinks it is good if OOXML becomes a standard.

-In a letter from Microsoft, our business partners were informed that they were "expected" to participate in the SIS meeting and vote yes. As a compensation they would get "market benefits" and extra support in terms of Microsoft resources.

-This was a mistake and the letter was sent by a single employee on his own initiative without sanctions from Microsoft. He also quickly realised his mistake and tried to recall the letter.

-I can understand the critique about coup-like voting. But I claim the voters knew the issue well and had their own interest in OOXML becoming an ISO standard.

(Interviewer) -Has this harmed Microsoft?

-Time will tell. But almost all customers we have been talking to thinks it would be good if OOXML became an ISO standard.

own interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

>But I claim the voters knew the issue well and had their own interest in OOXML becoming an ISO standard.

If this is true, then why
1) does MS tell their partners in the letter on which arguments for OOMXL they should use? MS even advises their partners to not use "too technical" arguments (are there "technical" arguments in favour of OOMXL anyway??).
2) does MS tell their partners to go to one or two meetings AFTER the voting to prove they are not only in it for this single vote?

A question? why does this matter?

[CodeShark]

BTW I am against the obvious M$ practice of buying a standards committee vote so blatantly . But I do have a question along the lines of "what happens if I throw a huge ($) party and nobody comes?"

What I am asking is this: let's assume that Microsoft spends major bucks to get their OOXML stuff accepted in a few different countries through a standards committee, but then the standard is proven to NOT be open -- as is being shown by work already in progress -- but that the lack of openness and the bad press generated by their blatant vote buys in the mean time pretty much corrupts the market value of their standard anyway.

What do you think?

Was he fired?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a mistake and the letter was sent by a single employee on his own initiative without sanctions from Microsoft. He also quickly realised his mistake and tried to recall the letter.

Was this employee fired?

Where is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

[AHuxley]

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act does not work for Working Groups?
You have governments interested and 'market subsidies'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Pract ices_Act [wikipedia.org]

Re:A question? why does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft does not intend for anyone to actually use this "standard", least of all themselves. If you read the critique [blogspot.com] of OOXML posted on ./ a few days ago, you'll see that the standard is not much more than a text version of the binary Office files -- but worse, because it contains redundant information, balloons the file size, and will be much slower to read and write. It may be a text-based format, but it is not easily human-readable or -modifiable, and several aspects are poorly specified or rely on unspecified Office or Windows behavior. So anyone running Office will continue to use the native Office formats, and anyone not running Office will not be able to implement the standard -- and it wouldn't matter if they did, since the Office users won't be generating OOXML files.

What does Microsoft gain from pushing through a specification, then? If they succeed, then customers like Massachusetts will not be able to complain about a lack of an "open standard" format that can theoretically be used by other applications after their current version of Office has been end-of-lifed. But, more importantly, if the Microsoft standard passes, then when ODF comes before standards committees, the Microsoft-packed panel can argue that a standard format already exists, so they don't need to pass another. And this saves Microsoft from having to handle *two* (possibly conflicting) document-handling code paths through all of their applications. If ODF passes, it doubles the work for Microsoft to comply, but if OOXML passes, it doubles the work for Open Office and others.

So, what if Microsoft's proposal doesn't pass? In that case, they can argue on subsequent standards committees that no one is interested in open document formats. With their huge, poorly written standards document, they have bought themselves time to manipulate large "uncertain" customers like the State of Massachusetts. And, even by losing, they have confused and clouded the issue of whether open formats necessary and which one is best. (Why do you think they called it "Open Office XML"?) So, really, Microsoft wins either way.

Whether the OOXML standard passes or not, we can expect that Microsoft will not support any other "open" format, since "one already exists". Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if Office 2011 or so removes the format, with the rationale: "Our user studies showed that no one was using it."

Love

[Das Auge]

Have I told you lately how much I love you?

Re:Sweden was a Phyrric victory

[jkrise]

Now what I will do with those documents is send them to my board of directors. They will read them.

I have already done so, in a private intranet forum... I've compared Microsoft's tactics to that of third-rate politicians in India. I'm sure when the top brass gets more and more details of this sordid episode, there will be zero resistance when I suggest that we simply avoid Active Directory, Exchange, Office and Sharepoint for our business systems.

Re:Sweden was a Phyrric victory

[JohnFluxx]

I didn't know what a Phyrric victory was, so I looked it up. Here it is for anyone else curious:

King Pyrrhus of Epirus fought a war against the Romans in 280BC. He won the war, but in the process lost most of his soldiers, commanders and friends.
The Romans lost more men in the battle, but had plenty of new men to take their place. Pyrrhus on the other had little left.

He famously said: "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone."

Re: Agency theory?

[phoenixwade]

Last I knew, this guy sent the letter as official correspondence, and that "official correspondence represents the company". I don't know how they could use the "single employee" theory, because Accounting doesn't give *me* $50,000 to spend as I please without authorization.
(See? Who's supposed to pay that? That means at least TWO employees... and counting.)

The reports indicated that Microsoft didn't cut a check for entry fees. Instead it promised resources and future concessions to compensate for each company cutting a check. That is something One individual could do in a Corporation the size of Microsoft.

Now that we have that out of the way.... Of course it was a supported corporate move. What's more, it's part of a global strategy, the same thing was/is occurring in other markets, so they actually have a rogue salesman IN EACH MARKET

Re:Check list for OOXML

[ExE122]

You've got to hand it to Microsoft, this is brilliant stuff. It's just as much of a lock-in as the old binary data ever was but they've got ISO voting to make it a new standard. It's amazing what a few free lunches can buy.

Definitely, and what really kills me (and you should add this to the checklist) is that the proposition includes workarounds for potential issues that Microsoft has forseen.

For example, there is some issue with the way the old M$ date format would port over to OOXML. So the proposed "standard" is an altered OOXML date format that makes it work for M$, but doesn't allow for dates before Jan 3, 1900 or something like that...

It's insane. It's not anything close to an "international standard" (the I and the S in ISO), but a standard that is written by and works better for Microsoft. So everyone else just has to deal with it's setbacks as such...

Re:Aren't they missing something?

[init100]

Surely the whole point of standards, be they national or international, is that they are not allowed to depend on encumbered "intellectual property".

That's just plain wrong. MPEG is an ISO working group, and their standards are shock-full of patented technologies.

Same on other countries ... and nobody do anything

[edgar_zavala]

I received emails telling me how to vote (I quote and translate) "... to vote do click on the link below and write on the body: YES and your information ..." I think about how many companies affiliated to the CANIETI (the Mexican chamber for technology, telecommunications, etc.) followed the directions without even thinking about what they where doing. Today Microsoft reach my limit on acceptance about what a company can do or should do to support their business assets. I was worried about receiving calls (from Microsoft) with instructions on how to vote (as YES) or receiving emails with direct links to an email to vote... until I received a new email from them. The email I received included a direct link which opens my email client and puts on the body 'A Favor' which means 'I AGREE' o 'YES'. The recipient for this email was the person in charge of the votes, but this link included CCs to Microsoft emails! ... What!? .... They want to know how many of us voted and what was the vote? Why? Is this illegal? Is this ethic? Why nobody here in Mexico sees this clear illegal and biased tactic to ensure a Mexico vote on YES to the standard? I don't want to start a flame war over who is right, what standard is better or what the ISO should do with the OOXML. I'm against the techniques and wrongdoing of Microsoft regarding how they are manipulating the vote in Mexico and how nobody seems to see this as I do. I ear this is happening in almost al the countries; I just don't want believe what I see. PD. The only option, abstention. Why? because if you vote NO you should put the technical reasons why your vote was no and if microsoft fixes the issues your answer is YES anyway. If you vote with abstention then there is a way to limit the quorum required to approve the Micro$oft initiative. - Omnia iam fient fieri quae posse negabam."

More than one? 20!

[leuk_he]

Note that the translator says "one of the participants of the working group cast more than one vote ."

How about MS sweden making almost 20 votes, most by proxy? that is also covered by that translated line.