ICT Sandards, Accessibility and Self-Regulation
The OOXML Contradictions Disclosed
What happens next? The files sent to me also include the JTC1 transmittal note, which indicates that after internal consultation, next steps will be communicated to the National Bodies "in the very near future."
Here are the extracts, divided by category, taken directly from the original responses filed by the 20 national bodies.
Updated 10:50 EST 3/3/07: I have not felt comfortable posting the full documents that I have received. However, I will provide links to them as others get copies and post them on line. You can find the summary Ecma document, with Ecma's proposed actions, through the following link that appears in a March 1 article by Eric Lai at ComputerWorld, or in this link from a March 3 Groklaw article by Mathfox. The same article by Mathfox includes the full text of the French response.
And California Makes Four
When deciding how to implement this section, the department in its evaluation of open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following features:(1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications.
(2) Fully published and available royalty-free.
(3) Implemented by multiple vendors.
(4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.
Denmark and Open Standards
Those who are following government initiatives to mandate the use of open standards and/or open source will be aware that Europe has been a leading change agent in this area, joining the pioneering work in a similar vein of Massachusetts and Minnesota and, more recently, Texas. Those that have been following European initiatives closely will also be aware that Denmark has been in the legislative forefront, and that blogger John Gotze has been kind enough to provide English-language commentary and updates on what's been happening there.
A couple of days ago, John posted an update at his blog on open standards legislative action in Denmark, which you can find here. The following are a few excerpts to set the stage, and you can also find an English language summary of recent developments here in PDF form, and here in ODF format.
On Friday, the Danish Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, Helge Sander, made a press announcement (Danish) about his plan for following up on the Parliament Resolution 8 months ago.
The implementation plan is presented in a report which suggests that “open standards should be implemented gradually by making it mandatory for the public sector to use a number of open standards when this becomes technically feasible”.
The report identifies an initial sets of open standards as candidates for mandatory use from 1 January 2008 “if an economic impact assessment shows that this will not involve additional costs to the public sector”.
South Africa and the PAS Process: A Plague o’ Both Your Standards
How bad can it get? Apparently pretty bad, according to the South African national body, which thinks that the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) avenue to ISO/IEC adoption is being abused. After being apparently subjected to the lobbying efforts of camps pro and con through both the ODF and now the OOXML adoption process, they have become down right testy.
Microsoft’s Love Letter to IBM and the Shape of Things to Come
Microsoft has determined that it is important to shine a bright light on IBM's activities that will have a negative impact on the IT industry and customers, including taking concrete steps to prevent customer choice, engaging in hypocrisy, and working against the industry and against customer needs. Microsoft will continue to be public in identifying the ways that IBM is trying to prevent customer choice.
-- Statement by a Microsoft spokesman on February 14, 2007
OOXML and ISO: Fact and Fancy
Given that there has been a fair amount of information, disinformation, and supposition flying around, I thought that I should share some additional details that I've learned relating to the contradictions received by JTC 1 regarding Ecma 376 (nee Microsoft OOXML).
In doing so, I'll borrow Stephen O'Grady's trademark Q&A approach again, albeit not as skillfully as he does. Here we go, starting with Stephen's traditional conflicts disclosure, which I try to remember to include from time to time for the benefit of new readers.
Q: I hear you do work for OASIS, and that IBM is behind all of the contradictions activity. Are these conflicts, and are there any others to report?
A: Yes, I am counsel of record to OASIS, the developer of ODF, although in fact I do very little work for them. Also, I've had no involvement with ODF at OASIS, nor been consulted in any way by OASIS regarding ODF, ever. Neither IBM nor Sun, another ODF proponent, is a client, although each is a member of many consortia that I represent – as are thousands of other companies, governmental agencies, universities, NGOs and individuals. Sun did fund the creation of the Standards MetaLibrary section of this site, but that was four years ago.
Q: Got it. So let's get down to business. I hear that Microsoft's Tom Robertson was quoted in eWeek saying that 103 nations have standards bodies "with the authority to act at the ISO on behalf of that country," and that ,"What we see is that only a small handful have submitted comments." MS' Brian Jones also says at his blog that " It sounds like about 18 of the 100+ countries reviewing the standard came back with comments."
So just how big a deal is that, anyway?
The Contradictory Nature of OOXML (Part III) – Mea Culpa
One of the things that you learn early when you blog is to ignore the flames, or at least try to. Lots of people will assume that you're a jerk (a/k/a you think something they don't), or that you have all of your facts wrong. They can often get pretty harsh about it, too. Still, you have to keep in mind that you're not going to always be right, and own up and take it in the chops like a grownup when you get called out. Assuming, of course, that the one calling you out has their facts right.
For example: yesterday I noticed that someone had posted a trackback to this entry of mine to one of theirs that they titled Andy Updegrove's Indian Fancy. That post, at a Microsoft site, and written by self-described "Open XML Technical Evangelist" Doug Mahugh (I see from this entry that he's also the person who wanted to hire Rick Jelliffe to edit the ODF/OOXML entry at Wikipedia) , included the following, beginning with an out take from my blog entry:
"According to one story, at least one of these countries (India) was considering responding by abstaining from voting, in protest over the extremely short amount of time provided to review the voluminous specification. Instead, it appears that it opted to knuckle down, finish its review, and submit contradictions instead."
…Well, maybe Andy knows something I don't, or maybe he's just quoting somebody who got the facts wrong. There's been rather a lot of that getting-the-facts wrong stuff lately when it comes to file formats, you know. :-)
And Now There are Two: Sun Announces its ODF Plug-in
Sun announced today that it would make a "preview" version of its Office to ODF plugin in "mid February," with the full version to follow "later this spring." Plugins will be available for use with both Sun's StarOffice as well as the open source OpenOffice.org office suite. The announcement comes five days after Microsoft announced the immediate availability of its Office to ODF plugin at SourceForge.
At this time, neither plugin will work with all versions of Office. According to the press release issued by Sun just now (the full text appears below), the Sun plugin will only work with Office 2003 text documents, while the Microsoft plugin will (according to Martin LaMonica) apparently be usable in connection with Office 2003, Office XP and Office 2007 (Elizabeth Montalbano, on the other hand, says that it will only assist users that upgrade to Microsoft Office 2007; I'll give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, and go with Martin's report). Initially, that means that most Office users will be able to use either one, the other, or both alternatives.
Similarly, both plugins will initially only convert Word documents, although the developers on each version team are working on enabling conversion of spreadsheets and presentations (the Sun version will be available in April; I do not know the expected delivery date for the Microsoft version). Again, the Microsoft plugin will only work with Office 2007.Rambus Narrowly Avoids Zero Royalty Penalty in 3 – 2 Decision; FTC Caps Royalties Instead
Monday morning's voicemail included a courtesy call from FTC Complaint Counsel Geoffrey Oliver, letting me know that the Federal Trade Commission had just issued its ruling in the penalty phase of its prosecution of memory technology company Rambus, Inc. (the reason for the call is that I had previously filed pro bono amicus curiae – or "friend of the court" – briefs with the Commission during both the trial and the penalty phases). The full Board of Commissioners had earlier found, on appeal from a holding in favor of Rambus by an FTC Administrative Law Judge in 2004, that Rambus had illegally created a monopoly in certain technology by abusing the JEDEC standard setting process in the early 1990s.
That opinion was handed down last summer, together with the announcement by the Commissioners that they would hold further hearings with FTC Complaint Counsel and Rambus, and would welcome industry input, before determining what penalties would be appropriate to levy against Rambus on account of its conduct. Several industry groups filed amicus briefs as well, urging the Commissioners to impose stiff penalties. My own brief urged the FTC to include a punitive element, in order to emphasize that abuse of the standard setting process would result in dire results. Most obviously, such an element would be to bar Rambus from charging any royalties at all from those that wished to implement the standard at issue.
For Rambus, the stakes were high, and would go beyond the direct economic impact of whatever the FTC would impose, due to the multiple private cases that are ongoing between Rambus and various semiconductor companies that have refused to pay royalties to Rambus. These royalties relate to patents that the FTC has held were illegally hidden by Rambus from its fellow working group members in JEDEC who created the SDRAM standard at issue. At least one judge has delayed further action in one of these cases, in order to learn what penalty the FTC would conclude would be appropriate under the circumstances.