Microsoft Joins OpenDocument Alliance

Jim writes "Microsoft has joined a committee that has a key role in the ratification of OpenDocument as an international standard, leading to accusations that it intends to sabotage the process. Microsoft has denied this accusation, claiming that the only reason why Microsoft employee Jim Thatcher has joined the group was to get involved in the ISO standardisation of its own file format." From the article: "'There sits Microsoft, waiting, like a spider,' wrote Jones, in a posting on her site. 'I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, did you mean this or that?, getting bogged down in minutia until, lo and behold, either Microsoft's XML makes it as an ISO standard first, or they arrive neck and neck.'" More information here on a subject we touched on in a recent Slashback. update a few readers have asked for the clarification that MSFT has not joined ODF, but rather the "INCITS/V1 Technical Committee"

eerily familiar

I don't know if Microsoft's motivation is sabotage by joining ODF, but from the article, an eerily familiar description:

"There sits Microsoft, waiting, like a spider," wrote Jones (Pamela), in a posting on her site. "I am imagining ODF plodding along, with Microsoft asking questions, fine-combing through the comments, 'did you mean this or that?', getting bogged down in minutia until, lo and behold, either Microsoft's XML makes it as an ISO standard first, or they arrive neck and neck."

(BTW, isn't there a Donovan song about Pamela Jones?)

Ahem, back to the topic... I worked on a group from our company and Microsoft on an e-commerce soon-to-be-standard (related to xml), and Microsoft's attitude, performance, and etiquette was embarrassing, annoying, and unprofessional. Aside from the unsurprising Microsoft employees' strong-arming the agenda, it was clear they had no affinity or appetite for any of our ideas. It was also equally clear that their intent was the final result would be their way or the highway.

Also, having worked briefly at Microsoft, the description resonates with the "triage" meetings at Microsoft -- at the time, the hot topic was IBM's MCA bus architecture, and ideas to make sure it would not be important in the emerging PC technology.

Superficially, it may be a good thing having Microsoft join ODF, but I wouldn't let them bring in or take out any pencils, paper, or recording devices of any kind of the meetings. Just my hunch, I don't trust them.

Re:eerily familiar

We all know where this is going. We've been down the road before.

I'm beginning to think that an adequate punishment for Microsoft's monopolistic practices would be to forbid them to submit any standards, sit on any standards committee or have anything to do with drafting of standards. It's punitive and it would fuck up one of the big ways in which MS has been able to screw the industry.

Re:They don't ignore standards

Also, see Windows TCP/IP implementation in Win95/98. Working as an ISP call center tech during it's reign of terror was fun.

"You can connect OK but can't get any web sites?

Tries pinging

DNS is hosed

"OK now, open network properties. See TCP/IP? Delete it. Go ahead and delete everything in this window. Click OK all the way back out. Now restart when Windows asks you to. If it doesn't, restart anyway."

Minutes pass

"OK now, let's go back to network properties and readd TCP/IP. Windows is asking for the CD? Just put it in the drive---you don't have the CD? I'm sorry, I'm sure that I asked you that before we started. Be sure and call back when you find your CD, OK? Bye now"

Re:eerily familiar

"Microsoft never have had much to do with standards, other than to completely ignore them and create their own stuff regardless."

I am not so sure about that. They made a fine [newsforge.com] friggin mess [messagingpipeline.com] of the SPF [openspf.org] standard by introducing patents on several key parts of the standard while delaying and filibustering until the IETF working group (MARID [circleid.com]) became defunct as a result. I am sure I could find other examples of MS strong-arming, delaying, and otherwise being a general pain in the ass to standards bodies.

Re:eerily familiar

...joining ODF...Microsoft join ODF...

Nobody can "join ODF". It's a physical impossibility. ODF is a format. You can't join ODF any more than you can join RTF, CSV, etc. Microsoft could join the OpenDocument Alliance (ODA), perhaps. But they have little interest in doing so. And they haven't. They've joined INCITS. It's a technical committee that steers the ISO adoption process. Joining ODA would mean they support ODF. Joining INCITS can mean any number of things...most likely that they want to slow down ODF ratification as an ISO standard. Any other reason they give has about as much truth in it as "Read my lips...no new taxes."

Can't join CSV?

Can't join CSV eh? $ ruby -e 'p [1,2,3,4].join(",")' :-P

Can you say OpenGL ARB?

Microsoft managed to stall OpenGL 2.0 and other improvements for the longest time by claiming potential patent infringements with its vertex and pixel shader technologies. As a result OpenGL stalled for some time. Microsoft has since left the OpenGL ARB (Architecture Review Board) after doing the damage it needed to do. Deja vu.

I call BS on your BS remark

Read it and weep.

Microsoft claim shakes graphics world [zdnet.com]

3D graphics world shaken by patent claims [zdnet.co.uk]

Standards stalled over royalty disputes [zdnet.com]

Microsoft clarifies OpenGL position ... sort of [geek.com]

OpenGL 1.4 unveiled [builder.com]

Re:eerily familiar

Dr. Weird: GENTLEMEN! I give you - MORE STANDARDS MICROSOFT IS INVOLVED WITH!

Assistant: Well, gee, I dunno, last time...

Dr. Weird: THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT!

Assistant: Well, OK, we could use Microsoft's support after all, and -

Microsoft starts adding in .Net components and ActiveX controls

Assistant: AEEEIEEE!!

Dr. Weird: It's not different at all, is it, Steve?!

Ballmer: Steve smash! Throws a chair at the assistant

Dr. Weird & Ballmer: Maniacal Laughter

Imperial March

Why did I hear the Imperial March when I read this story? Now MSFT will try to strong-arm the alliance into recognizing that MSWord is the only way.

Re:Imperial March

"Why did I hear the Imperial March when I read this story?"

Because you're a hopeless nerd who has trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality, and is prone to exaggeration and paranoia?

Are you suggesting...

...that equating Microsoft with the Imperial March is being unduly suspicious and paranoid about empires?

Jesus Christ

Could you PLEASE fix the headline?! Microsoft most definitely DID NOT JOIN the OpenDocument Alliance. ODA is the group who is trying to push for ODF adoption. Microsoft can join if they want, but they don't want.

They joined the INCITS/V1 Technical Committee. They're not even remotely the same thing and don't even look remotely similar (ODA vs INCITS). Way to go on the asinine headline Zonk.

why would they sabotage it?

I can't imagine why anyone would think that Microsoft would sabotage this project. After all, their past statements clearly show that they fully support it.

hmmm

I really can't see Microsoft ever sharing the 'office' market, using universal formats, with any other company but MS.

PDF is more standard than .doc, in my business experience, for sharing documents intercompany.
We're stuck with .xls for the forseeable future with spreadsheets though.

Not much to do

I'm not sure if it matters if the MS format becomes an ISO first or at the same time. The lines are already drawn. Every software group that produces word processing documents seems to either be using or at least supporting ODF. Who supports Microsoft's format aside from Microsoft? No one right now, and those who do support it will follow microsoft no matter what the outcome of all of this is anyway.

If anything I'd say they put him there to observe the progression more than anything else.

Or maybe I forgot my tinfoil hat today.

Useful opinion:

I'm sure that will work out fine.

Finally....

This was pending from Microsoft's side for a long time now... proprietary document formats that MS follows is never known to be business friendly, and they change lots of things in the format in every new release of office just for the heck of it!

Similarities to OpenGL

I wonder if they'll sit on this board or committee for a while until it's no longer to their benefit and when they pull out we'll read articles about how Microsoft's pullout could cripple the whole thing. It just seems like they join them to get their ideas and then leave when there is nothing more to be offered.

FUD?

FTA: ""In order for Jim to participate in the future Open XML File Format work he needs to have standing in JTC1 SC 34 [a committee that mirrors INCITS/V1] which mandates participation over time. His presence in this group will have no impact upon the voting process for the ODF standard. Just as we have a seat on the board of OASIS and have not participated in the ODF process there, we will not participate in the JTC1 process," said Jason Matusow, Microsoft's director of standards affairs, in a statement." (emphasis mine)

Anyone have any info on whether MS has truly laid off with OASIS and the ODF process there? Not to say that non-interference there means non-interference with Open XML, but it's a start.

They'll fail

ISO certification or not, true open standards are the wave of the future. Too many companies and people have gotten burned by vendor lock too many times, to the point where the movement toward open standards and open source here in Taxachusetts has attracted mainstream press, not just technical journalists. Perhaps ODF won't gain steam quite as quickly if it became an ISO-certified standard immediately, but with states' and commonwealths' accepting ODF as the document exchange and archival solution, it will quickly filter down to education, state vendors (who want to keep their contracts) and law offices, and from there trickle down to everyone else. Small companies will quickly learn "Oh, I DON'T have to plunk down $450 for Microsoft Office any more? Where do I get this OpenOffice?"

Can't believe it hasn't been said yet...

Embrace and Extend?

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't

If MS doesn't join the alliance, they're seen as factious and self-serving.
If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.

Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't

If MS doesn't join the alliance, they're seen as factious and self-serving. If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.

Yep. /.'rs, by and large, see MS as facetious, self-serving, and sometimes sneaky and underhanded... This is because by and large MS *is* facetious, self-serving, and sometimes sneaky and underhanded.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I think we have very good historical reasons [wikipedia.org] for keeping a very, very wary and suspicious eye on MS's behaviors.

Here's some good reading for you

Right in this very discussion even!

Microsoft managed to stall OpenGL 2.0 and other improvements for the longest time by claiming potential patent infringements with its vertex and pixel shader technologies. As a result OpenGL stalled for some time. Microsoft has since left the OpenGL ARB (Architecture Review Board) after doing the damage it needed to do. Deja vu.

Quickly accused to be BS by an Anonymous Coward. [slashdot.org]

but then another AC to the rescue with the smackdown. [slashdot.org]

Honestly, do you really think Microsoft is interested in collaborating with a standard that threatens to deprecate the MS Office format? Is that what you seriously believe?

Re:Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't

If MS doesn't join the alliance, they're seen as factious and self-serving.
If MS joins the alliance, they're seen as sneaky, underhanded, factious and self-serving.

I know! It's sooo unfair. I mean, seriously. The worst they've ever been found guilty of was abusing their monopoly position. And that has only happened in several countries. The other dozens of allegations, like those relating to their interference with past standards such as OpenGL and Kerberos, have never even been tried in a courtroom. These assumptions of ill intent are based on nothing more than Microsoft's chronic and well-documented behavior over the past ten or fifteen years. It's soooo unfair.

Microsoft was already a member of OASIS, too...

You can see the list of OASIS members here:

    http://www.oasis-open.org/about/ [oasis-open.org]

is this a joke?

MS in an open document group? I mean, I have to convert Word 2003 files to pdf (using OpenOffice) before sending it to employees who have Word 2000!

This is just a badass joke, isn't it?

Re:is this a joke?

Overrated -1

Overrated? Tell that to my boss, who has Word 2000 and can't open the brochures I prepare in word 2003 (same office building, bad IT). So I end up downloading Portable OpenOffice because I have no administrative right to install a pdf printer, open my Word doc in OOo, fix it, export to pdf, and send that... And I get overrated. peh!

Conspiracy theories too soon

Guys: I am a member of the group that Microsoft joined, JTC1 SC34. This is a very broad group that encompasses SGML, XML, HyTime, topic maps, Font Interchange and ODF. As per Microsoft's claim, it would probably include Microsoft's formats when they show up at ISO.

http://www.jtc1sc34.org/#scope [jtc1sc34.org]

The Slashdot heading is VERY incorrect and biased against Microsoft.

Re:Conspiracy theories too soon

The Slashdot heading is VERY incorrect and biased against Microsoft.

Here? On Slashdot? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Patent Disclosure?

Does this technical committee require full patent disclosure by all members? If so, might this help ODF by forcing Microsoft to state now if they have any patent claims on anything that makes it into the final standard?

I'd hate to see Microsoft secretly steer the committee towards something that, five years later, they would shut down as a patent violation. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened *cough*Rambus*cough*.

Not a dupe

Atleast I don't think so. I mean, you cant get more original than Microsoft Joins OpenDocument Alliance, can you?

but seriously, what is the issue in whose format is the standard, as long as it is standard? The standard needs to be something easily defined, can be adhered to without loss in functionality and is extensible. If MS's XML satisfies that, good enough..just make sure balmer guy does not sabotage that once it becomes the standard

Then the alliance must be ignored

I'm sorry, but we can't be letting MS set our agenda. If they are on the standards committee, then we must, perforce, ignore the standards committee. There really *isn't* any other choice...well, one. We could set up a new standards committee.

I understand that we would like to get approved through the committee, but if they have decided to allow MS on the panel of "judges", then that has to become a "trailing edge" kind of loose end. It may not be what we want, but it's what's necessary. And if the ISO insists that we go through a checkpoint throttled by MS, then the ISO needs to start being ignored.

There are good reasons why Linux never tried for POSIX standardization. Cost, expense, and timeliness. This looks like the same situation repeating itself. The ODF is currently a workable standard. It's open, and free for anyone to implement. Release a dated and versioned copy and declare THAT the ODF standard. If various people want to suggest improvements, have a project manager who vets them and a team that decides which to include and which to reject, just like a normal software project. And release updates.

If we can't go through the official channels, we'd best take advantages of the strong points of the methods *we* have developed. Stick it in a cvs or subversion tree, let people download and submit fixes. Etc. Release early and often. Things we couldn't do with an ISO standard, but if they're going to put MS on as a gate keeper, well, "You can't fight corruption with card tricks". (I got that from someone's sig, and I don't know the original, but it seems to fit the situation.)

This is a positive step for MS

The government should either have forced MS to publish its DOS API in full back in 1983 so others could write competing operating systems to that API, or converted to a net present asset valuation tax base [geocities.com] but failing all that the move by MS to open standards is the first real indication that they actually believe their material about having all this power due to having the best software -- as opposed to having a natural monopoly. Good for them.

Microsoft is.......

A Cancer, eating away at open standards from the inside!!! A Cancer I tell ya!! They're like communists, No, Facists, No! MONKEY DANCERS!!!!!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and foam at the mouth and throw some furniture.

Deja Vu - JAVA

I remember M$ infiltrating some JAVA organization and then tried to derail the standard by releasing their own Windows-centric JAVA engine. Sun successfully sued them for breach of contract and the M$ JAVA engine was pulled off the market.

There was some reluctance from members of that JAVA organization back then too, and their worst fears proved correct.

Other examples of the same M$ infiltration method are out there and they earned a reputation that they cannot be trusted on a standards organization.

There is always a first...

I dont' neccesarrily think that Microsoft is out to destroy this committee.

Maybe Open Source is making a big enough dent in the market for them to realize that their proprietary crap isn't going to fly anymore. That their document formats aren't going to be the standard anymore, and that they better get on board or at least make an attempt at compatibility by integrating those formats in their suites, (ala .pdf, .xml, etc...)

The Flex projects at Adobe/Macromedia are starting to take hold, to the point that nobody is even taking a second look at Sparkle. Since the release of the Flex SDK, I've been all over it like white on rice.

Is MS Waking up? Maybe, but not probable...you are right...there's a fox in the hen house with feathers on it's head...trying to see what the hen's are planning...

they will do like they always do

They will help write the standard and then they will implement what they want out of it, and extend it to suit their needs.

People, look at HTML, CSS, and various other web standards, MS has their name all over these standards and look at how IE implements them. MS does this with all standards, so why should this be any different.

Mod this down if you wish, flame it, etc, but I'm right and you know it!

Huh??

Oh man.. they posted this article 4 days early !!!

who is Jim Thatcher and why did MSFT pick him

I went looking up Mr Thatchers background and it seems he has quite a background in tech. He worked at Novell from 95' til 2000 and wore a number of hats there but mostly it was related to Novells NDS product( software engineering/design, NDS SDK Dev design, and NDS training, etc ). Then he skipped on over to Redmond WA to join Microsoft to work on their NDS compatibility in MS Windows. But none of this really stands out as a REASON for Microsoft throwing him into the ODF fray. I did see that Mr Thatcher has been used to help Microsoft in their attempt to show the EU that Microsoft was doing a good job providing technical docs for interop'ing with Windows. Mr Thather said that Novell and Microsoft expect interop developers to be expert on the platform and subsystems they work on. Again, not really a reason WHY Mr Thatcher would be put on the ODF project. ODF is an application filesystem spec and not a spec for distributed directories...

There another Jim Thatcher( http://www.jimthatcher.com/ [jimthatcher.com] ) but he does not appear to be the same as the MSFT Jim Thatcher. But, I could see the 'hook' in this being that Mr Thatcher could probably attempt to hold up ODF progress with accessability issues. After all, who will cry foul on EXTENSIVE discussions about Accessability for the Visually Challenged? It's been brought up before and it was/is a valid concern...

Are there any photographs of the MSFT Jim Thatcher?

What do others think is the justification/qualifications for putting MS Jim Thatcher on this project?

LoB

Please tell me someone else...

has had the same thought I just did. Isn't it a little disconcerting that the commitee would allow someone from a corporation to sit on group that votes what becomes a standard???? Can you say biased opinion?

*tinfoilhat*

Board Voter: So, do you really think that screwy MS Office format should be ISO?

MS Employee: Of course! It's the best thing I've ever seen, lets not even bother with the others and get this done. I have to get back to my job.

Board Voter: I'm not sure thats a good idea....

MS Employee: I'm sure after we play a few games of golf with that new membership I just gave ya you'll feel better about the whole thing.

Immature solution :-) PH33R

I'm not condoning violence.
But if a series of incredibly improbable, non-related events of M$ infiltrators getting smacked with a trout - or squashed by a piano - took place, it would make them think twice whether to fsck up other people's sincere efforts for money.

Zdnetted

Couldn't this story have been picked up when it was posted on Groklaw seven days ago. Or is the actual story more to do with the fact Zdnet is now citing the article, than any issue surrounding the substance of the article itself?

I'm tired tonight, hence the gripe.

Wasn't MS asked to join the OASIS ODF committee?

Don't you ODF advocates constantly proclaim that Microsoft was asked to join the original OASIS ODF committee, so any problems Microsoft might have in storing MS Office files with ODF could've been addressed? And therefore MS has no basis on which to claim that ODF's lack of support for MS Office features is reason to not support ODF in Office?

But now that Microsoft joins a more widely recognized standards committee for that format (as opposed to the rubber-stamp, anti-MS OASIS committee), you guys get pissed? LOL

With MS on this committee, maybe they'll be more likely to support the format. They'll be more confident that the format is app-neutral. As of now, it's based on OO.o's former format and lends itself towards OO.o's previously existing code (adding ODF support to OO.o to support ODF was childs play compared to what other programs would have to do, since ODF is based around OO.o's codebase).

WILL YOU FIX THE HEADLINE PLEASE ?????

WILL YOU FIX THE HEADLINE PLEASE ?????????

TOTALLY WRONG, DIFFERENT STANDARDS BODY
YOU NEED TO TRIPLE CHECK BEFORE YOU THROW THIS CRAP TO THE HOMEPAGE

ODA vs INCITS, It doesn't look like an unintentional mistake, pure, absolute slashdot rubbish.
It's not even up to the minimum common journalistic or blogging standard.

(oh, wait, slashdot was in dire need for more hits today)

Microsoft most definitely DID NOT JOIN the OpenDocument Alliance. ODA is the group who is trying to push for ODF adoption. Microsoft can join if they want, but they don't want.

They joined the INCITS/V1 Technical Committee. They're not even remotely the same thing and don't even look remotely similar (ODA vs INCITS).

Lose, lose situation for Microsoft?

OK, so people on ./ criticize Microsoft for not complying to standards, for locking people into Office with their proprietary document formats.

Now, when Microsoft does an about face, and wants to support one of these open formats.. do you embrace them for doing what you said they should do? No.. it must be some ulterior motive to sabatoge the standard! Of course!

Microsoft joins ODF?

Isn't that rather like Satan joining the Peace Corps?

Open?

If a group starts excluding others, is it really 'Open'?

They're right to be skeptical...

MS did exactly the same thing to the DMI standardization effort (DMTF) a few years back, as a stalling tactic until their "CIM" model came along. The last thing they wanted was an open, cross-platform standard management interface.

ODF is a sad joke

I simply don't understand the pressure from the industry placed on Microsoft to become p