Double standards for Microsoft and OOXML

gallery

More relevant to our current discussion is the knowledge that a computing standard allows a user to be platform, vendor and software independent. Standards make networking possible. For this reason, standards have tended to be opposed by incumbent monopolies, who want to sustain their monopolies and create barriers to entry.

In some cases, the incumbent monopoly has subverted the standard to further its own interests. After all, the solution to competition from Linux and free software was stated clearly by a Microsoft engineer, Vinod Valloppillil, in a leaked Microsoft internal report as far back as 1998: "OSS [open source software] projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditised, simple protocols," he wrote. "By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we [Microsoft] can deny OSS projects entry into the market."

Valloppillil went on to describe areas in which Microsoft has "de-commoditised" protocols, and can do so in the future, with the objective of sabotaging interoperability, namely: "DNS integration with Directory. Leveraging the directory service to add value (sic) to DNS via dynamic updates, security, authentication," which translates as using market dominance in one area as a means of stretching and proprietising standards in another, suffocating innovation in the process. We do not need to ascribe such motives to Microsoft to realise that a second standard for office applications of such length and complexity is a recipe for confusion.

All in the game

The absence of standards for any segment of computing is bad for users, choice is removed, and prices escalate. The problem for Microsoft is that, for the first time in years, it has a realistic competitor in the office space. Whether you run Windows, Linux or the Mac, it makes sense to use OpenOffice for one simple reason above all others. OpenOffice comes at zero cost.

Coincidently, OpenOffice also supports ODF as its default data format, which has made it increasingly attractive to governments. Governments have also been increasingly vocal in demanding open standards for office applications, which some may feel is the primary reason why Microsoft has been pushing for the adoption of a proprietary standard over which it can wield control. The problem remains that implementation of OOXML will not be easy, or possible, on other platforms, and there will be one broken standard for Microsoft, and one for the rest. In this eventuality many governments may well decide to go with the rest.

Microsoft has the ability to do the best by its users, and conform to the existing standard. Or it can continue the damaging political process that has jeopardised the reputation of the ISO amid allegations, justified or otherwise, of "ballot stuffing", "bribery" and "gaming" of the standards system. Standards belong to us all, and are not the property of the biggest and baddest players.

The next round in this battle will take place at a meeting in February 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland, which allows Microsoft the opportunity to propose modifications to satisfy the objections of the national standards bodies. If these fail the process will be abandoned, although the standard can be re-submitted for consideration at a later date. Microsoft owes its countless millions of Office users to play it straight, and follow the industry standard. But nobody is confident that this will happen.

Email to a friend

Print this page