On TV.com: 5 SCARIEST Episodes in TV History
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 46 of 55:
Next »
« Previous
And those other MS Office supported formats?
Several MS Office products already support exporting and importing formats other than MS internal, many of which are missing the ability to support some features availablee in the Office formats. MS apparently is able to deal with this by popping up a dialog box which informs the user that some features are not supported in the selected output format. The user then selects whether to proceed or not.

So, just what is it about IRM, a function which 99% of real world users have difficulty understanding even when you explain it to them slowly and patiently, yet which you contend the market is desperately clamoring for, which is any different? If a document in Word format has IRM, the the programmers at Microsoft are probably bright enough to fashion a dialog box which says something like, "Use of this document is currently limited by IRM options. Please use your Master Decoder Ring to disable IRM functions before attempting to save in ODF."

And BTW, having tried to explain how IRM actually works to a few of those business executives who actually are asking for it (usually because they saw a blurb in the WSJ about how it would magically solve their SarBox problems, or some other drivel), I know they don't typically understand what it actually does, either.

As I've written before, the real issue here is whether the data, and the rights to do whatever a user needs with that data, whatever format is it stored in, belong to the person/organization which produces the data, or the organization which holds a license to the format. So long as the format license terms, free license or not, can potentially restirct a state government agency which entered the data, or whatever individual or organization which entered the data, that they cannot use some particular future product to access, use or 'reverse engineer' the data fomat, then the format license itself introduces a huge risk. There are many, many past examples of data archives which became unaccessable after one vendor or another was purchased, folded up and died, or simply lost market share and threw a tantrum, making it impossible to use another product to access data without violating a license.

An earlier poster gave the example of cars which would not run on 'standard' highways. I think a better example would be cars which required a key to unlock the door to get in or out, and a license to use the technology in the door key. Would you like to buy a car which required you to sign an license agreement which said that if you lost the door key you would not use any other key, tool, or method to try to open the door without permission from the original vendor? Would it matter whether the licensor promised that they would never, ever intend to prevent you from opening the car door at any future date? And if they really didn't intend to prevent you from opening it, then why would they need you to sign a license for use of the car door key format?

I wouldn't buy a car from that vendor, for risk of having something in the car (my children, for example), when the key broke off in the lock. State government officials are not supposed to be in the business of taking that sort of risk when there are other cost effective alternatives available.
Posted by: gardoglee   Posted on: 12/15/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story No further replies to this post will be accepted.

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Well, Massachusettes really has drawn a lot of atention to document formats  DonnieBoy | 12/14/05
Another thing, Microsoft would never submit thier format to standars if not  DonnieBoy | 12/14/05
By all? Not the GPL crowd  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/14/05
And why not GPL?  Eternl_Knight | 12/14/05
The GPL won't allow it, has nothing to do with MS.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
It has everything to do with MS, they intentionaly make their license  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
Aw, itty bitty open source loses again.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
Again, if MS software is superior to open source, the market will decide,  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
Already happened.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
Again, then what is Microsoft afraid of? Why not support ODF?  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
Simple, ODF can't support all the Office features.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
OASIS would be all ears if MS want to add features to ODF.  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
According to Microsoft....  John Le'Brecage | 12/14/05
It is the GPL that says no, not Microsoft.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
The Microsoft license fails for almost all open source.  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
Larry Rosen (renowned attorney) says you are clueless.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
The general opinion is that the requirement for third party licensing  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
Sorry but wrong again. If the GPL restricts it, that isn't MS's doing.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
This isn't just about GPL software, we are talking almost all open source  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
What is it you say, No_Axe?  John Le'Brecage | 12/15/05
Massachusettes wants to use GPL software, so yes, very important that  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
No, the GPL sux and encumbers anyone touching it.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
Again, if the GPLed software is so bad, the market will decide, MS has  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
re: No, the GPL sux and encumbers anyone touching it.  richdave | 12/16/05
Another point here, the licensing issue is only ONE part.  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
WHy would MS limit themselves to the impoverished state  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
Office document formats are NOT rocket science.  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
But you really can't trust Microsoft, can you?  Quiet_Type | 12/16/05
Still doesn't get it  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/14/05
Don't think Mass. really cares about your opinion.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/14/05
Down to ad-hominem already?  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/15/05
Nice try, still wrong but nice none the less.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
Nice Try AX  djc1309@... | 12/16/05
Again, customers have a right to specify standards, and venders should say  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
And Mass. has, they like MS Office.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
The people making the purchasing decisions want ODF. And, end users  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
No, they do NOT want ODF.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
They also want free and open competition on the merits to lower costs for  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
Already done.. There are dozens..  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
MS XML has an extremely small market share and few third party products  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
MS is just being obstinate here  j.m.galvin | 12/15/05
Sorry but you are DEAD wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/15/05
Again, let the market decide. If users think those features should be baked  DonnieBoy | 12/15/05
That's just silly  j.m.galvin | 12/15/05
Re: Sorry but you are DEAD wrong.  none none | 12/15/05
And those other MS Office supported formats?  gardoglee | 12/15/05
complete garbage  hipparchus2001 | 12/15/05
Too true! Rock meets hard place.  John Le'Brecage | 12/15/05
Goodie, building a roadway to progress  Boot_Agnostic | 12/14/05
I cannot wait to hear this meeting too!  John Le'Brecage | 12/14/05
I cannot wait to hear this meeting too!  John Le'Brecage | 12/14/05
read- our Governor's party was paid by m$  mvaar | 12/15/05
Why in the world would anyone use MSXML if ODF is available  hipparchus2001 | 12/15/05
You're pretty far from the truth on most of that.(nt)  IT Scion | 12/16/05
Who pays into the politician's re-election funds? Not the makers of ODF(NT)  George Jay | 12/16/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here