On TV.com: ADAM LAMBERT'S A Big Faker
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 23 of 58:
Next »
« Previous
Open XML is proprietary
"By what some are writing here, they are implying that the ECMA Open XML formats are still proprietary. Does use of the Open XML formats require a licence from MS or ECMA? That is the key criteria! Next is the process by which changes are made."

When you produce a standard for your own product and then attempt to have it implemented as a common standard it inevitably remains proprietary. ECMMA is not taking over the standard and developing with reference to other products. It belongs to Microsoft and they will do what they want with it. It may become a de facto standard but it's one where Microsoft employees decide >95% of what's going to happen.

Sadly Novel having taken Microsoft's money are now doing their bidding. By offering Open XML conversions to their Open Office clients it provides apparent legitimacy for Microsoft's standard.

From its outset Microsoft has been one of the most aggressive campaigners in subverting industry standards. The idea that they are going to become good boys and accept that the world is driven by open standards if a fantasy. Like every other standard they will use it and then move on when it no longer gives them market advantage.

Open XML is simply a cynical attempt to ensure that no one can mandate a standard such as ODF without providing the option of also choosing the Microsoft "standard". Sorry ECMA standard.

Why does it matter some people say as long as it works. It matters because Microsoft have been able to use its proprietary approach to kill of competition using both fair and other means. Now the competition has all but gone the only way back would be through a common standard. By imposing a Microsoft standard that opportunity is diminished. So without competition Microsoft gets away with charging large amounts for its product.
Posted by: martin23   Posted on: 12/08/06 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

Jones v. de Icaza  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/07/06
good post but  Quebec-french | 12/07/06
PJ vs MS  Scrat | 12/07/06
question ? do you really think ....  Quebec-french | 12/07/06
Just who is the "big gun " here  xuniL_z | 12/07/06
well most well known big gun  Quebec-french | 12/07/06
Be mindful of your audience  NonZealot | 12/08/06
Differences that matter  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/07/06
Differences that matter (reformatted)  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/07/06
If we take what you say...  mdsmedia | 12/07/06
Wrong!!  techboy_z | 12/07/06
Here's the thing.  joe6pack_z | 12/08/06
Advantage for users in Open XML  Anton Philidor | 12/07/06
Not True!  linux for me | 12/07/06
Correction  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/07/06
Gee, I thought Novell was open source...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/07/06
And it was a Novell employee...  Anton Philidor | 12/07/06
That's ridiculous...  techboy_z | 12/07/06
Extensible: Two-edged sword  Patanjali | 12/07/06
Sounds like you've taken...  mdsmedia | 12/07/06
Will all the software than can read Microsoft formats...  Anton Philidor | 12/07/06
ODF perpetuate current Office thinking  Patanjali | 12/07/06
Open XML is proprietary  martin23 | 12/08/06
Levels of Abstraction  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/08/06
Licenses  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/08/06
Agreed, mostly  Anton Philidor | 12/08/06
However...  John Le'Brecage | 12/07/06
So what?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/07/06
well ?  Quebec-french | 12/07/06
Gee, the facts say you are wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/07/06
what do you know  Quebec-french | 12/07/06
Learn to read, Don  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/07/06
Offer a choice, then.  Anton Philidor | 12/07/06
You are too funny  mosborne | 12/08/06
Nice spin!  techboy_z | 12/07/06
You've been spun.  Anton Philidor | 12/07/06
Assumptions  Scottman_z | 12/07/06
Microsoft's document gambit moves ahead  Loverock Davidson | 12/07/06
Wrong...  Tim Patterson | 12/07/06
For the same reason they let you post here Lovey....  mdsmedia | 12/07/06
ECMA double standard?????  martin23 | 12/07/06
Why bother?  Yagotta B. Kidding | 12/07/06
standards for who  martin23 | 12/07/06
Lets keep it real...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/07/06
ODF called better?  Anton Philidor | 12/07/06
Keep in mind, MA lost BADLY  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/07/06
Amazing  mosborne | 12/08/06
Would you consder ODF a pro-Microsoft thing?  Anton Philidor | 12/08/06
It could have been, is MS had wanted it  mosborne | 12/08/06
Should Open Office XML not be compatible with Office 2007?  Anton Philidor | 12/09/06
Microsoft was part of the group that decided what ODF was.  B.O.F.H. | 12/09/06
So ODF was written for Microsoft's benefit.  Anton Philidor | 12/09/06
You should do a little reseacrh before you post!  B.O.F.H. | 12/09/06
It seems to make you feel better  mdsmedia | 12/07/06
I wish you'd keep it honest  Fred Fredrickson | 12/07/06
We know how MS work with standards  I am Gorby | 12/07/06
Dueling standards?  techboy_z | 12/07/06
Yes it took alot of effort for OSS  Aussie_Troll | 12/08/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here