This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2008/01/20/faking-open-closing-process/.

● 01.20.08

●● A Month of OOXML Publicity Stunts and Microsoft’s Fake Openness

Posted in BSD, Deception, ECMA, Europe, Formats, Microsoft, Open XML, Standard at 3:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Open… for interpretation

By this stage, many people have possibly forgotten the Burton Group-Microsoft stunt. It isn’t the latest one though. As the following short article indicates, Microsoft’s claim that OOXML has opened up further (as once requested) is nothing but another stunt.

=> Burton Group-Microsoft | stunt | opened up | as once requested | ↺ another stunt

One has to wonder where Microsoft thinks it’s going to find anyone competent who’s willing to write open source BSD licenced code that can only benefit the Vole [Microsoft] itself, without any compensation except a promise not to get sued.

Sam Hiser actually predicted something of this kind about 4 months ago when we corresponded. He said that Microsoft would let some binaries go at the last minute in order to give its little standardisation-by-corporation campaign a much-needed boost.

Meanwhile, in Denmark, Microsoft’s spin doctors continue to upset, as the following meeting minutes reveal:

=> ↺ meeting minutes reveal

We didn’t discuss why the OSP isn’t enough but [Microsoft's] Chris did a lot of work criticizing Andy Updegrove for his articles against Microsoft. Well, in another audience that might work.

I criticized Microsoft of taking the fast track route when it was later discovered that the specification was not at all qualified for that route. A document is not ready for a fast track, when so many faults and errors can be found. ECMA didn’t do their job. Chris some kind of agreed (!) with me and said that the route was chosen after recommendation from ECMA.

[...]

I am beginning to understand why Microsoft is still claiming to be open. Basically it’s a matter of how we interpret the one word open. Microsoft think that XML alone makes the standard open. I use another definition. The process has to be open and transparent and the organization must be protected from being hijacked by a singe vendor. I don’t think he [Chris Capossela] agreed or even commented on that.

It sure seems like Microsoft is aware of its sins. It hasn’t any defense for it, either. Rest assured, it will strive to rewrite history when the whole thing is over. Fortunately, we have plenty of stories documented — and they ain’t going away any time soon! █

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink  Send this to a friend

=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend

=> Techrights

➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.