Novell to support Microsoft Office documents

TalkBack 20 of 39:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Skullduggery

As Mr. Berlind unintentionally documented well in his defense of the MA railroading of Microsoft, the small group which made the effort to exclude Microsoft's formats met with Microsoft's competitor's and antagonists on June 9th, with Microsoft representatives in the room.

Microsoft's representatives thought that this would be an ordinary meeting because the company's formats were already approved as open. They were very wrong, as they watched the cabal develop a definition which would allow the pdf format as open, but exclude Microsoft's which had almost the same restrictions.

To show how fine the difference was, if someone changed the pdf format so badly it would not work with pdf-related applications, the resulting format could not be called pdf. Microsoft's rule was that no one was permitted to break the format, even if willing to call it a different name.
As a result of this difference, pdf was considered open, and Microsoft's formats not.

By the time the meeting finished, a definition of open intended to prevent Microsoft's formats from qualifying had been agreed.

That's skullduggery.

From the article linked, note that Microsoft ceased lobbying after the request of Mr. Gutierrez. Though he did threaten that if the legislature ever passed a law allowing a larger group, including those directly involved in using the software, to be involved in rule setting, he would hold Microsoft responsible.
(A Microsoft representative said the company stopped because legislators were sufficiently informed. I suspect that information was... simplistic.)

I also suspect Microsoft was satisfied because of a continuation of the agreement to encourage sale of Microsoft software. For Microsoft software sales rather than fervor over file formats was probably the main issue.

Is it possible that, had you seen the MA legislature pass a bill for a more deliberative method of making decisions regarding software, you would have considered their action corrupt?


On the EU countries, I think there's some nationalism and more socialism abroad in Europe. Whatever the cost, attacking a successful company, especially a US company, is considered appropriate.

Remember the French (naturally) Judge originally leading the Microsoft case who published an article criticizing younger EU staff for knowing English too well and favoring capitalism too much? He no longer is leading the case.


Microsoft is capable of skullduggery.
But government officials abusing their authority for ideological ends can do a better job than Microsoft. And probably without public recourse.

Criticizing Microsoft is often appropriate. But one should discuss known Microsoft actions, rather than make the assumption that any Microsoft success must be nefarious.

Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 12/04/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS to Achieve Highly Available, Load-Balanced Clusters Dell The Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS operating system integrates Cluster ... Download Now