Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

OOXML: An Obscured Business Suggestion and Microsoft Fined Again

By Pamela Jones et al.

Microsoft's Jason Matusow has posted a blog entry that I suggest epitomizes his company's style in trying to force the world to swallow Microsoft's OOXML. I'd call it a FUDsicle. First, Matusow attacks Google because it said yesterday that "OOXML doesn't meet the criteria required for a globally-accepted standard." He casts aspersions on their motives, as usual.

Then, surprise, surprise, he suggests we all should read Patrick Durasau, whose rather sudden turnabout on OOXML has some jaws dropping, tongues wagging and lips curling. Mine for sure. Despite the mysterious sudden change, did you know he *still* says that he prefers ODF and considers it superior? He just wants us all to help Microsoft get its act together and "co-evolve". You know what's wrong with that idea, the two-track, may-the-best-standard-win idea? Many things, but one is because Microsoft is a monopoly, and it will cut off ODF's air supply.

Durasau didn't however endorse OOXML. He just says Microsoft has improved as to openness and should be given credit. You think the EU Commission might have something to do with that new "openness"? Let's credit the correct entity. I guess you saw that the EU Commission just fined Microsoft ... again... over interoperability. Here's video [registration required] of Neelie Kroes, and here's the EU Commission press release. If this is what it takes to get Microsoft to open up a tiny bit -- and I believe it is still treating the GPL as unworthy to interoperate equally in its OSP and its recent patent pledge -- how much do you trust it to fix things in OOXML? Should you put faith in such a pledge and vote Yes on the basis of a Microsoft promise to fix it all later? Consider the source. Consider the history.

And let's define the word "openness" a bit more carefully. Can you think of any way to make the ISO BRM now going on in Geneva any *more* closed and private and cut off from public scrutiny or input? If this ISO BRM process is openness incarnate, how do you define that word 'open'? We have no way to know what is going on in that closed and sealed room. The process seems as closed as Microsoft's software, particularly when you contrast it with the earlier ODF process.

Full post as published by Groklaw on February 27, 2008 (boomark / email).