Ref. Ares(2011)808658 - 25/07/2011

Inter-Institutional Committee for Informatics

Conclusions on document exchange
formats following the discussion on office
automation platforms

The mandate of the Inter-Institutional Committee for Informatics (hereafter “CII”)
includes, on the one hand, the exchange of information about the IT policies of the
Institutions represented in it (hereafter “the Institutions”) and, on the other hand, the
identification and encouragement of potential areas of synergy.
In this context, during its meeting held in Brussels on 14 December 2010, the CII held a
discussion about the current situation of, and the future strategies for, the office
automation platforms used by the Institutions, based on a survey distributed ahead of the
meeting and filled in by all the Institutions as well as by 15 additional EU Agencies
(hereafter “the survey”).
In addition, in order to initiate and facilitate the discussion, the Commission delivered a
presentation of its project “Next Office Automation Platform” (NOAP).
The main findings of the survey were the following:

(1) At present, the EU institutions typically run Microsoft-based solutions on the
corporate desktop, as their office productivity suite, on the e-mail platform side,
and on the collaborative platform, although diversity is certainly higher in the
latter.

(2) All respondents indicated their expectation to remain on Microsoft-based
platforms in the office automation realms mentioned above for the foreseeable
future (i.e. for the 2 years to come).

(3) The revisable document formats used at present are mostly Office 2002/2003
formats (84% of replies). The expected prevailing document format for the future
is Office Open XML (68% of replies).

(4) The Internet browser offering is already diversified at present, with a strong OSS
presence (Firefox) alongside Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, and this
offering will become increasingly diversified in the years to come.

The discussion showed the following:
– A decision is due on what how revisable document exchange format should evolve in
the future. Indeed, Microsoft Office 2003 with Office 97 compatibility, the format
currently used for inter-institutional exchanges, as well as the most widely used
internally in the Institutions, is outdated.
– Standards have since been adopted by standardisation bodies in this area, as well as in
the area of non-revisable document formats.

– Irrespective of the migration intentions of each of the Institutions, there is now a high
expectation both internally and externally that document exchange formats should be
based on standards.
Following the discussion held during the meeting, the Institutions agreed that a common
approach to revisable and non-revisable document exchange formats was advisable.
This common approach can be summarised as follows.

1.
Exchanges with the external world.

1.1.
As a general rule, non-revisable document formats should be preferred. In
this area there are two standards, both of which are implemented by a large
variety of viewing tools, including Open Source Software (OSS). The PDF
(ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008) is a widely used official standard. However, for
archiving purposes, the second standard PDF/A (ISO 19005-X) offers some
advantages. It is recommended to use at least one of the two ISO standards
for non-revisable document formats.

1.2.
In cases where documents have to be exchanged using revisable document
formats, the principle to be applied by analogy is the same as when dealing
with multilingualism. Citizens and the Institutions’ partners (e.g. Member
States) should be put at the centre, and the Institutions should take all
appropriate measures to be able to provide them with documents in the
standard format of their choice.
The minimum requirement is to support XML-based revisable document
formats standardised by the International Organization for Standardization,
namely:
– Open Document Format for Office Applications, or ODF (ISO/IEC
26300:2006).
– Office Open XML, or OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500:2008).
In addition, the Institutions are encouraged to support, on a best effort basis,
other widely used document formats.
Whenever multiple formats are supported, equal quality may not be
guaranteed.

2.
Interinstitutional exchanges.
2.1.

As far as non-revisable document formats are concerned, there is no
reason to depart from the format recommended for exchanges with the
external world. Therefore it is recommended to use at least one of the two
ISO standards (ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008 or ISO 19005-X).

2.2.
As far as revisable document formats are concerned, XML-based
international standards are the preferred approach. Given the fact that:

2
– on the one hand, OOXML is much more widely used than ODF at the
moment, and this situation is not likely to evolve in the foreseeable
future; and
– on the other hand, all the Institutions plan to migrate to office automation
platforms which will produce XML files natively while providing 100%
native support for legacy formats such as Office 2003,
the preferred document exchange among the Institutions is OOXML.
2.3.

The guidelines given above should not become an impediment for achieving
even greater administrative efficiency through interinstitutional cooperation. In particular:
– where, for legal or other purposes, a non-revisable document must be
regarded as the official version, the Institutions should, where necessary,
exchange also its revisable version;
– where, for technical reasons, an Institution needs a revisable document in
its native format, the originating Institution should provide it in that
format, in addition to the official exchange format (if different);
– where, for legal or other reasons, a closed group of users is established,
specific arrangements can be made.

The Institutions agreed to take the appropriate measures so that, at the end of their
ongoing or future migration projects, they can implement this common approach in an
efficient and fully synchronised manner.

Some time soon, MS-centric government officials will no longer be able to pretend that MS Office implements the ISO standard, and it will no longer be eligible for procurement contracts. Microsoft has been losing on almost all other fronts recently, and their flagships seem destined to go down with the rest of the fleet under the command of a seriously misguided and deeply corrupt management. I think it is time for MS to drift into oblivion and leave the market to other players who might not be quite as rotten to the core.

Brazilian Open XML debate veteran Homembit comprehends (es) the fraternisation:

A few days ago we were all surprised by a document leaked at CableGate, exchanged between the US embassy in Brazil and the American Government in 2007. According to this cable, Microsoft made serious accusations against the Brazilian government, and…, they indirectly asked for an intervention of the American Government to halt the spread of ODF in Brazil, to win the Brazilian support for the approval of OpenXML in ISO, to halt the partnership between the Brazilian technical committee and other committees discussing the international standard at that time, to reduce the influence of Brazil in the international debate on OpenXML, and also to accuse the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Brazilian Presidency’s Civil House of being anti-Americans.

Jan Wildeboer of Redhat comments:

We all knew that MSFT would fight hard against ODF. But calling it an un-american standard? Geez.

I don't know if the Brazilian government was pro-American or not. What felt offensive to me was the attempt to depict technical criticism of the format as a way to "discredit" it. Actually that is quite a distortion of the facts. The format was formally not ready for adoption and technical defects were brushed away by stuffing committees. The diplomats also had their difficulties to understand the difference between adoption of a data exchange format and procuring a software solution. Other foreign offices, among them Brazil and Germany, had better recommendations than a hapless co-existence idea.

US citizens and corporations would figure out why the US embassy was turned into a solutions provider abroad. The amount of cooperation between sales representatives and diplomacy is surprising and does not suit the dignity of their office. Disgusting.

Please read Homembit's article for a Brazilian SSO inside perspective.

Source: http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/19/0059209/Australia-Mandates-Microsofts-Office-Open-XML

See the FFII press release: European Parliament wants Open Document exchange format for electronic business for further details.

You can subscribe to FFII news to receive them per mail.

Throughout the controversial phases the editing process demonstrated a clear bias of professional editors towards a certain corporate agenda and pushed the Open XML article towards a "shadow article" as a target, close to advertisement. So regardless what was changed by the 'ordinary guys' would be reversed, step by step.

Now the Open XML controversy is gone. We have to understand that a lot of money is at stake. Consider that the Council could save 50 Million Pounds by shifting to ODF and open source. And that is just a tiny example.

Microsoft subject matter experts from both the support organization and the product team will be onsite to answer questions about the Binary File Formats. This Plugfest will be a great opportunity for you to test your [Binary File Format]BFF implementations and receive immediate feedback and assistance from Microsoft.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dmahugh/archive/2010/08/18/binary-file-format-plugfest.aspx

Source: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=id&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.detikinet.com%2Fread%2F2010%2F07%2F28%2F151112%2F1408538%2F398%2Fdokumen-negara-wajib-gunakan-format-odf%2F%3Fi991103105

It seems better to make up your mind about the future of Opendocument and how to improve interoperability of implementations.

I doubt reform is possible.

Others might have a different opinion:

Thomas Vinje, the lawyer of ECIS, raised the issue at the recent OpenForumEurope (OFE) Summit (the one where Neelie Kroes praised "open" standards) of compatibility of the OOXML ISO specification with the procurement directive, which forbids product naming and platform dependencies. This is indeed an interesting question that needs to be investigated. Does OOXML still has platform dependencies? If yes, what would happen if the specification is required in a public tender?

Bryden was also a member of the Commission's EXPRESS "expert panel" group on the future of European Standardisation which report advises for strong IPR policies against open standardization. The IMCO meeting relates to the Parliament phase of the EXPRESS process and the Future of European Standardisation. Read what the winding lobby snakes write in their report to actually promote standards locked down by software patents:

European standards are developed in an open process, and there are uniform, nondiscriminatory conditions for their development as well as for their sale or distribution. The implications of IPRs relevant to a standard need to be visible to the standards developers during the standardization process. Cooperation should further be improved between the standards bodies and the European Patent Office to ensure that issues where there is an interaction are visible at an early stage, as this would lead to an improved quality of patents and standards. In this context, ETSI has established cooperation with the European Patent Office and recently signed an MoU, thus institutionally confirming their commitment to deepen their established cooperation.
It is important that standards organizations continue to ensure innovation-friendly policies including a balance between the interests of the users of standards and the rights of owners of intellectual property as almost all standards bodies do today.
Such a balance may take into account differences regarding the areas of standardisation, according to the consensus of the stakeholders involved. … Such a balance needs to also consider the requirement to continue incentives to innovate in technical areas subject to standardization.
Standards bodies are encouraged to assess their IPR policies with a focus on promoting innovation.
In the Guidelines for cooperation between the EC, EFTA and the ESOs, the ESOs have committed to ensure that standards can be used by the market operators. The objective is to ensure licences for any essential IPRs contained in standards are provided on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions (FRAND). In practice, in the large majority of cases, patented technology has been successfully integrated into standards under this approach. On this basis, standards bodies are encouraged to strive for improvements to the FRAND system taking into consideration issues that occur over time.

The Consumer Committee manages to hold a hearing with the opponents of consumer-friendly ict standards policy. Despite some placeholder organisations no real consumer groups and no sme representatives are involved.

Links

• Members of IMCO
• Poster of the IMCO Hearing
• Programme of the hearing

In its pre-release form Office™ 2010 supports not the approved Strict variant of OOXML, but the very format the global community rejected in September 2007, and subsequently marked as not for use in new documents – the Transitional variant.

[Their] representatives will argue (with some justification) that terms like “legacy”, “deprecated”, and “new document” are tricky to define, but then this argument extends to the bizarre assertion that the Strict variant need never be supported. I believe, however, countries expect a more reasonable, plain-dealing approach to their clearly expressed intent – not this kind of wheedling sophistry. Mr Capossela writes that Microsoft has “learned a lot”; but on the evidence before us now, this was wishful thinking.

"It’s not easy to look back at decisions that you helped to form and conclude that they may have been ill-conceived, or at least bad bets. I applaud Alex for the candor that he shows in this blog entry, and for sharing the details that only first-hand participants in the ongoing OOXML maintenance process would know."

"Which leaves, of course, one question remaining: with no general awareness of the facts, will Alex’s blog entry drop like a pebble into the pond of the Internet, leaving few, if any ripples? Or will others pick up on it? "

"Danish expert and BRM delegate Jesper Lund Stocholm, running an analysis of Office 2010 files wrote: “It has been the fear of many that Microsoft will never, ever care at all about the strict conformance clause of ISO/IEC 29500, and my tests clearly [are] a sign that they were right.”"

"Most worrying of all, it appears than Ecma have ceased any proactive attempt to improve the text, leaving just a handful of national experts wrestling with this activity. It seems to me that Microsoft/Ecma believe 95% of the work has been done to ensure the standard is “useful and relevant”. Looking at the text, I reckon it is more like 95% that remains to be done, as it is still lousy with defects."

"One of the worst things that happened out of that, [is that the ISO] which was previously respected by people that didn't know it so well, became absolutely despised," he said. "There are some countries now thinking of pulling out [of ISO] because it is simply not worth participating in a process that is so obviously corrupted."

(17) Office Open XML. The “.docx, .xlsx and .pptx” file formats used in the Office 2007 version of Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications shall implement the ECMA 376 Specification. This commitment shall apply to successor versions of Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications with respect to IS 29500. This means that Microsoft shall support the relevant standard and provide a warranty as specified in the general provisions in Section B.I of this Undertaking, effective 1 January 2010.

(18) Microsoft shall publicly document Additional Information for the ECMA 376 Specification that meets the requirements of paragraph (15) above. This commitment shall apply to successor versions of Microsoft’s Primary PC Productivity Applications with respect to IS 29500. Microsoft shall provide a warranty as specified in the general provisions in Section B.I of this Undertaking, effective 1 January 2010.

So Paragraph 15 seems interesting:

(15) This paragraph describes how Microsoft shall implement paragraphs (16) to (18) and Section 2.2. Microsoft shall make Interoperability Information available to interested undertakings relative to file formats used by Microsoft Office Word, PowerPoint and Excel that allows third-party Software Products to open, manipulate, save, exchange and share documents created by Microsoft’s PC Productivity Applications without a loss of container structure information or any instructions in the file that describe the document's formatting characteristics. For these purposes, file formats are understood as containers to hold data created by users of those Microsoft’s PC Productivity Applications and information describing associated properties of that data, and the Interoperability Information in the foregoing sentence does not include information about the functionality of these applications or the underlying operating systems that could be used to clone or port Microsoft products in whole or in part.

Now the patent pledge for open source… developers!

Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you as an open source software developer ("You") for making, using, importing, or distributing any implementation of the Technical Documentation ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to You, and You acknowledge it is a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise by any other person in connection with this promise. To benefit from this promise, you must be a natural or legal person participating in the creation of software code for an open source project. An "open source project" is a software development project the resulting source code of which is freely distributed, modified, or copied pursuant to an open source license and is not commercially distributed by its participants. If You engage in the commercial distribution or importation of software derived from an open source project or if You make or use such software outside the scope of creating such software code, You do not benefit from this promise for such distribution or for these other activities.
To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the Technical Documentation. … Where a software development project has in all other respects the characteristics of an open source project, distribution among the participants of that project of source code developed by natural persons under an employment contract or by natural or legal persons under a contract to develop is not considered to be commercial distribution, and that software development project does not lose its character as an open source project merely because such distribution takes place among participants. Software is deemed to be commercially distributed within the meaning of this promise when the distributor derives revenues in connection with the distribution, such as from subscriptions, updates, or user-based connection fees or from services that are contractually required for a customer to obtain the current version and/or updates of the software product in question.
This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of the Microsoft-issued patent claims cover a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that a Covered Implementation would not infringe on patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived, or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.

I wonder how much fun Brad Smith and his colleagues had with this…

Unlike the standards development systems of many other countries, the U.S. system systematically considers the views of all interested parties in a balanced way, leading to some of the most robust standards in the world. And the openness of our national standards system to new participants means that their needs can be met quickly and through innovative, collaborative solutions.

Question 3 With the globalization of technology development and business, is it time to assess an international standards system developed 50 years ago?
ANSI believes that the current international standards system is working well. It would be helpful to have an opportunity to better understand any concerns that you may have about the system so that we may work to address them. A meeting request letter has been sent under separate cover so that we may pursue this discussion.

As a founding member of ISO and a participant in the IEC for over a century, the U.S. enjoys a position of significant leadership within these organizations. Americans have served and continue to serve as officers and as influential members of all ISO and IEC governance bodies. We work very hard to garner broad support for the suggested improvements we put forward, and have developed strong relationships with many of our global partners within the international standardization community. As a result, we have been very successful in suggesting increased coordination and multiple process changes to the global system that benefit U.S. stakeholders.

And when U.S. constituents were concerned about new ISO and IEC standards that could been seen to usurp governmental authority, ANSI led the development of a set of principles to ensure that ISO and IEC standards provide solid tools to support the implementation – not set the direction – of public policies.

On the "Fii destept" ("Be Smart") website http://www.fii-destept.ro , we have some arguments for legally buying Windows 7 preinstalled on new computers:

"Would you buy a bike without chain or brakes ? Then why would you buy a PC without Windows legally preinstalled ?" says the announcement. "P.S. If you've answered YES at the first question, then it must be something wrong with you".

"If you trust your neighbour, Gigi, to install an operating system on your new computer, well… Our advice is to purchase an original Windows 7 license and don't rely on Gigi".

Other campaign sites are http://ftw.ro/ („volunteer” bloggers on the same subject), http://www.schimbafontul.ro , http://scoaladeeficienta.ro/

The general impression is that Microsoft is targeting the less IT-educated audience in Eastern countries, to counterbalance market share loses in other parts of the world.

How do you comment on that ?

I spent 22 years as the chairman of what is now ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34. SC34 is the committee that standardized SGML in the 1980s and now is responsible for both ODF, supported by many open-source products, and OOXML, the XML released by Microsoft in response to ODF. Neither ODF nor OOXML has anything to do with ODA/ODIF, which have been dormant since the turn of the current century but were still under development in the 1990s in a committee that was parallel to the one that became SC34.

Our past analysis: OOXML is a response. Thank you very much for the confirmation. Stronger language from Mason found in this article.

I would argue the politically correct term is "NPE" = Non-practicing entity but… I am looking forward to buy i4i's word processor.

I am still curious what effects would be caused when the ISO standard OOXML format is patent encumbered but I hope the company will be so smart and agree with the EU on an opt-out provision in case of submarine patents.

We’ll be hosting another DII workshop soon, and this one will be of special interest to those who want to understand the inner workings of MCE (Markup Compatibility and Extensibility) as defined in Part 3 of ISO/IEC 29500. We’ve used MCE for new functionality in documents created by Office 2010, and members of SC34 WG4 have expressed interest in understanding the details of our implementation. So we’re planning a workshop in Redmond on Friday, September 18, the day after the upcoming SC34 plenary in nearby Bellevue, to do a deep-dive review of how Office 2010 uses MCE.

A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell one of its flagship products, Word, in the United States because of patent infringement. …Judge Leonard Davis.. ordered a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to an announcement by the plaintiff, Toronto-based i4i Inc.

i4i? Ah, the world famous inventor of the "Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other" which is so basic to our digital societies?

PERMANENT INJUNCTION
In accordance with the Court’s contemporaneously issued memorandum opinion and order
in this case, Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following
actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more
than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing
and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any
infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future
Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
This injunction also does not apply to any of the above actions wherein any of the Infringing
and Future Word Products, upon opening an XML file, applies a custom tranform that removes all
custom XML elements.
This injunction further does not apply to Microsoft providing support or assistance to anyone
that describes how to use any of the infringing products to open an XML file containing custom
XML if that product was licensed or sold before the date this injunction takes effect.
This injunction becomes effective 60 days from the date of this order.
__________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of August, 2009.

Patent problems

We may add that while Microsoft always pays lip service to patent reform and patent quality, it effectively obstructed even moderate steps of pragmatic reform in the field of software patenting with massive lobbying investment and an ideological agenda. An ideological motivation you don't find among all the other players which have a real business. The massive lobbying also applies to colonial attitudes towards patent regimes of third nations in which the American company operates, or the European Union, our main area of operations as the FFII e.V. Ironically Microsoft itself is a favourite target of troll challenges and no one knows how much profits Marshall Phelps actually generates by selling their Microsoft FAT patents. In the spectacular case of TomTom we were told it was a very small amount. Some American critics as Brian Kahin speak of a patent bubble of low value patents but how is it going to burst? When you have a licensing business a good patent is one that hurts. Maybe the Encyclopedia Brittannica is an example, it failed commercially and now became an (unsuccesful) patent enforcement agency against actual market players.

In the recent referral G03/08 about software patentability an European Patent Office case named T 424/03 (Microsoft) was center to the debate. Find the Amicus letters here. Currently you also have a pending referral on Bilski in the US Supreme Court which is more far reaching than software. In the US many examination tests were dismantled such as the machine or transformation box test which opened the flood gates and unbalanced the system. It was reintroduced under the Bilski ruling but appealed at the supreme court. The Bilski test does not rule out software or business method patents but provides means to reduce the pressure within the examination system in later stages.

First you wreck the law, then the trolls wreck you.

Software Patents are a pain for market players of all sizes. In Europe some people from the FFII Community run a new Petition and we also prepare an international effort. The FFII, a charity under German law financed by membership fees and donations, has a lot of expertise and proposals on how to overcome the current troll problems and improve the examination and litigation system. Unfortunately learning the hard way does not guarantee a quick learning process.

What does it mean to Open XML?

Right now ISO/IEC 29500 ("OOXML") is patent encumbered and cannot be called an "open standard" according to conventional definitions and looks unusable for the public sector. Microsoft's own patents and lack of licensing clarity were a real concern, but i4i's enforcement efforts are on another level. ISO Open XML is currently in a critical situation as you can expect more enforcement attempts of i4i to follow in order to sqeeze money out of the market, in particular once Microsoft is forced to pay. On the other hand Microsoft will be forced to use all legal means to get rid of the patent. We need to keep a close eye on the upcoming developments but i4i may not prevail.

Expect the FFII, Eurolinux and many others to fight for that.

• European Petition: Stopsoftwarepatents.eu
• FFII Website FFII e.V. and FFII website for "Groff" text processing tools

Hier mal ein Text aus eigener Feder - die Weiterverwendung stelle ich frei,
ist erwünscht und hiermit gestattet, Adaption erlaubt, Referenz erwünscht:

Wie bekannt hat sich der Microsoft-Konzern, zusammen mit 3 Partner im
Rahmen der Open XML Formats Developer Group, sehr darum bemüht
ein von ihm selbst entworfenes Dokumentenformat unter dem Namen
"Office Open XML", kurz OOXML, im Dezember 2006 der ISO,
also der führenden Organisation für internationale Standardisierung,
zur Fortentwicklung und Absegnung mittels deren Verfahren an zu tragen.

Nach ersten Schritten, bei denen zahlreiche externe Kritiker auf die
generelle Inkonsistenz, Definitionsprobleme und so manche Unvollständigkeit
sowie auf allgemeine Unzulänglichkeiten hingewiesen hatten, ist dem
Vorschlag
trotzdem die Ehre zuteil geworden die ersten Hürden genommen zu haben
und in die höheren Stufen der Normen-Entwicklung vordringen zu dürfen.

Wie nun Benjamin Henrion, bekannter Gegner von Softwarepatenten unter
dem Dach des FFII, nun auf den Seiten der Initiative <NO>OOXML bekannt
gibt
(http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-174349/800-pages-of-defect-for-ooxml-here-it-is)
umfasst die jüngste Stellungnahme in Form eines Fehlerberichts nicht weniger
als 800 Seiten und präsentiert auch umgehend das zugehörige Dokument.
Das Dokument dürfte für Außenstehende regulär eigentlich nicht verfügbar
sein,
mithin handelt es sich also um eine Veröffentlichung die auf grauen
Wegen statt fand.
Henrion beklagt in diesem Zusammenhang eine gewisse Web- und Blog-Scheue
der ISO.

Das Dokument selbst datiert auf den 1. August 2009. Angesichts des nun schon
mehrere Jahre andauernden Bearbeitungsprozesses in den Reihen der ISO
erweckt solch ein dickes Werk keineswegs den Eindruck von Konvergenz und
damit besondere Zuversicht in eine baldige erfolgreiche Verabschiedung.
Eher mag man unter diesen Umständen den Wortmeldungen der Kritiker
aus der Anfangsphase durchaus zugeneigt sein, wie etwa 2007 auf dem
OesterBlog
diese nur 10 Kernpunkte umfassende Aufstellung mit Erläuterungen von
Problemen
(http://web.oesterchat.com/2007/09/05/probleme-mit-ooxml/). Was die ISO nun
vorgelegt hat übertrifft den Umfang dieser frühen Ansicht wohl um
Zehnerpotenzen.

Angesichts weiterer Patent-Anmeldungen von Microsoft im Dokumentenbereich
(http://www.heise.de/ix/XML-Patent-fuer-Microsoft--/news/meldung/143170),
darüber hinaus gehende Bemühungen um die Teilnahme an
Standardisierungsmaßnahmen
im Web-Bereich um das angehende HTML 5 herum
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/HTML-5-Microsoft-will-mitreden--/meldung/143253)
sowie harscher Kritik von Seiten IBM
(http://www.heise.de/ix/XML-Patent-fuer-Microsoft--/news/meldung/143170)
als auch von zahlreichen Regierungen nicht ganz unbedeutender Staaten
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Neuer-Protest-gegen-ISO-Zertifizierung-von-Microsofts-OOXML--/meldung/115301)
am hier recht eigentümlichen ISO Prozess tauchen natürlich Fragen auf.
So könnten sich staatliche Stellen, wie auch gewerbliche und private
Anwender
durchaus die Frage stellen, welche Qualität die althergebrachten
proprietären
Dokumentenstandards aus dem Hause Microsoft denn haben könnten, wenn
schon der bislang scheinbar beste Versuch zur Normierung eines Formats
aus dem gleichen Hause kaum in der Lage zu sein scheint die dafür nötigen
Anforderungen auch nach Jahren der Arbeit daran auch nur halbwegs zu
erfüllen.

Es bleibt letztendlich mehr als fraglich ob sich diese Norm für die Welt
hilfreich ist.
Gemessen am Aufwand für eine Umsetzung in Software steht schließlich
schon seit Mai 2005 mit dem OpenDocument-Format, kurz ODF,
ein klarer Sieger fest, der schon längst die ISO-Weihen genossen hat und
derzeit
bereits ohne viel Aufhebens hin zur Version 1.1 novelliert wird. Dies
nicht zuletzt
wegen der über 400 unterstützenden Unternehmen aus aller Welt in der
zugehörigen
Entwickler-Initiative "Open Document Format Alliance" sowie zahlreichen
existierenden
und gemeinhin tauglich funktionierenden Implementierungen, allen voran
die freie
Umsetzung im Rahmen von OpenOffice.org ab Version 2.0 (aktuell ist
Release 3.1).
Die praktizierte Übernahme in zahlreiche nationale Standards und vor
allem die
Übernahme als Vorgabe für die jeweiligen Verwaltungen schufen massiv Fakten.

Alexander Stohr
D-88131 Lindau (Bodensee)

The recommendation from Microsoft is that users roll back to an earlier version. So here is the official workaround for Office users:

• Remove Office manually, reinstall Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac from the original installation media, and then upgrade to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update. Do not upgrade to Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac Service Pack 2 (12.2.0) from Microsoft AutoUpdate.
• Use Time Machine to roll back to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update or an earlier version.
• Convert your document to .doc, .xls, or .ppt, by using Open XML Converter.

There is a more simple fix: Open file formats as ODF and more competition. Maybe you'd better try other word processors for instance Openoffice for Mac or Neooffice?

If you have time to read it, there are probably nice bits in there.

Microsoft will be the "social host" of the Seattle meetings, hosting the reception and dinner, etc. They will also be organizing a Document Interoperability Initiative (DII) event to occur the day after the SC34 Plenary, at Microsoft, to announce how they intent to support Office 2010 as extensions to OOXML.

The previous DII event organised by Microsoft in Brussels was basically a meeting of the Microsoft ecosystem.

Here is the announcement of the meeting on the SC34 website:

For general questions about Westin meeting logistics, or things to do around Seattle, please contact Dave Welsh, moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd#moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd, cell phone +1 206 313 0879.

[…]

More hotel options, at different rates, are also available. For more hotel options in the immediate Bellevue area and the Seattle vicinity, please try Live.com.

[…]

Located in downtown Bellevue, just twenty minutes outside Seattle, The Westin Bellevue is situated minutes from major corporate offices including Microsoft, Nintendo of America, T-Mobile, and Expedia.

You can expect a lot of people member of the Microsoft ecosystem at the next SC34 meeting in Redmond.

A word processor including a native XML file format is provided. The well formed XML file fully represents the word-processor document, and fully supports 100% of word-processor's rich formatting. There are no feature losses when saving the word-processor documents as XML. A published XSD file defines all the rules behind the word-processor's XML file format. Hints may be provided within the XML associated files providing applications that understand XML a shortcut to understanding some of the features provided by the word-processor. The word-processing document is stored in a single XML file. Additionally, manipulation of word-processing documents may be done on computing devices that do not include the word-processor itself.

Inventors: Jones; Brian M. (Redmond, WA), Bishop; Andrew K. (Redmond, WA), Snyder; Daniel R. (Bellevue, WA), Sawicki; Marcin (Kirkland, WA), Little; Robert A. (Redmond, WA), Krueger; Anthony D. (Woodinville, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.: 11/005,183
Filed: December 6, 2004

Brussels, 22nd May 2008
Antitrust: Commission takes note of Microsoft's announcement on supporting ODF in Office

The European Commission has taken note of Microsoft's announcement on 21st May concerning supporting ODF in Office. The Commission would welcome any step that Microsoft took towards genuine interoperability, more consumer choice and less vendor lock-in. In its ongoing antitrust investigation concerning interoperability with Microsoft Office (see MEMO/08/19), the Commission will investigate whether the announced support of ODF (OpenDocument format) in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/324&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr

I find Georg's argument is flawed. It draws a line between competition fines, structural funds for a candidate nation and Romanian software procurement. From an advocacy perspective ideally you get your criticism embraced by the major opposition party and make inroads there, contacts you establish and use to support your cause when the tide changes. Free software supporters may be interested to convince their European Parliament candidates:
http://www.freesoftwarepact.eu/

The news just emerged on OSOR.eu and other sources:

http://www.osor.eu/news/ro-proprietary-licence-deal-draws-ire-open-source-proponents
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/microsoft-makes-itself-at-home-in.html

The authorities seems to be totally disconnected from the actual national reality. It's not only the harsh financial times, but - despite many malicious obstacles - the Free Sofware community is growing steadily in Romania, advocating the official adoption of Free Software in Romania's public administration.

manoj87

Find Lawyer

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html

"If there is a deliberate attempt to obstruct competition we will sooner or later see the competition authorities march in." Indeed. Note that I would rather have written "As there is a deliberate attempt…". But my concern is that this could take some time to happen. There is therefore a case for mounting the pressure without waiting. This being said, I agree that most of the effort must remain focused on broadening the adoption of ODF, and only smart investments should be directed towards Microsoft tricks against interoperability.

The best thing to do is to move on and ensure broad public adoption of ODF and open standards.

If there is a deliberate attempt to obstruct competition we will sooner or later see the competition authorities march in. There is no need to be reactive. Pressure can be easily mounted with small and smart investments.

This being said, I don't know if a petition is the most efficient way to reach the goal. This is just a proposal, and better ideas are welcome. But I think we cannot simply wait and see.

That’s the plan for next week. A harder-hitting press release with Fact Sheet. Stay tuned!

The supporters of ODF should react to this. I therefore propose the following actions:

- Ask the ODF Alliance to publish a press release recommending not using the "Save as ODF" facility included MS Office SP2, due to the bad quality of the produced ODF files.

The ODF Alliance issued a press release on 28-Apr-09 saying:

The ODF Alliance today welcomed the release of Microsoft’s Service Pack 2 for Office 2007, a software update that provides long-awaited support for the OpenDocument Format (ODF), while cautioning governments to evaluate the new software to ensure sufficient interoperability with other ODF-supporting applications.
[…]
"Microsoft has dragged its feet for over three years now. The key test will be whether Microsoft’s support for ODF plays well with other ODF-supporting software,” continued Marcich. “Governments will want to further evaluate the support for ODF provided by Microsoft and whether it sufficiently meets their needs for greater openness and interoperability.”

The initial tests made by Rob Weir shows the very bad interoperability delivered, and I think that a warning to the users is deserved.

- Start a petition asking Microsoft to make MS Office SP2 unavailable until the design flaws in the product have been corrected.

We must make it clear to Microsoft that their attitude is not acceptable, and force them to behave in a better way.

Would it work to promote OOXML and the next generation ooxml implementations (let us coin them code name "Greenhorn")? eWeek's Larry Seltzer:

Obviously, Microsoft would like to have us all move to the new formats, mostly by virtue of moving to Office 2007, but that's not happening soon and Microsoft's not making us do it. In fact, Office 2003 will be getting security updates for five more years, until April 8, 2014, the same date security fixes for Windows XP will end.

Needless to say that this is about the implementation. He is speaking here about earlier implementations to support the format. He talks about support for the format as such.

…the damage from targeted attacks can be immense, and many users may be exposed. If Microsoft is going to claim to support the old formats for five more years, it needs to make security updates for them a high priority for five more years.

You can be sure that the corpus of existing binary document formats will be continued to be supported. The only revelevant question is if the next generation will be OOXML or ODF.

Will we listen to the binary insecurity tune to force customers to upgrade?

Whether OOXML Wins Or Not, Older MS Docs Aren't Safe

Here is another one to sell the next Office generation: the old binary formats are not "open". Diabolic laughter included.

29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by Corrigendum or by Amendment

Defects in ISO/IEC 29500:2008
Explanation of whether to resolve defects
by Corrigendum or by Amendment
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG4
2009-03-26
[…]

However, ISO/IEC 29500 is a very large and complex multi-part standard, and it is not surprising that the text contains many unintentional technical defects, which nevertheless don't make it impossible to implement the standard.

In the course of drafting, some existing office document features were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing documents in ISO/IEC 29500.

The corpus of existing documents probably means Office 2007 documents, which is an undocumented file format.

Here is the email I sent to the SC34 chairman:

From Benjamin Henrion <gro.iiff|noirnehb#gro.iiff|noirnehb>
to moc.liamg|12homas#moc.liamg|12homas
date Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:53 PM
subject Definition of an "existing document"

Dear Chairman of SC34,

I would like to submit a request and a comment by having read the
following text:

0036(pdf) 29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by
Corrigendum or by Amendment

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2009-0036.pdf

"In the course of drafting, some existing office document features
were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it
being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing
documents in ISO/IEC 29500."

Can you provide a definition of what an "existing documents" means?

Best regards,

—
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403

Let's have a look what definition they provide.

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2009-0036.pdf

29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by Corrigendum or by Amendment

Defects in ISO/IEC 29500:2008
Explanation of whether to resolve defects
by Corrigendum or by Amendment
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG4
2009-03-26
[…]

However, ISO/IEC 29500 is a very large and complex multi-part standard, and it is not surprising that the text contains many unintentional technical defects, which nevertheless don't make it impossible to implement the standard.

In the course of drafting, some existing office document features were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing documents in ISO/IEC 29500.

The corpus of existing documents means Office 2007 documents, which is an undocumented file format.

The document N1101/N1168 contains for example, several items in which they recognize that there are decisions made in the BRM (BRM resolutions) which were not incorporated into the final published text of the standard. In other words, even taking almost a year after the aproval of the standard to publish the text (yes, approved without reading), there wasn’t time/attention or anything else necessary to assure that the changes were published in the text (most of those changes, “conditioned” the approval). What makes me much more angry about this is that during the BRM I asked about who would be responsible for verifying that all these changes would be part of the final text and the answer was ITTF (kind of joint ISO/IEC secretariat).

He may be wrong that this is the final proof of misconduct at the BRM under the lead of Alex Brown and its mission impossible to fix the standard. Following the shocking uncoverings Jesper Lund Stocholm, Alex Brown and Doug Mahugh are acting like little school girls with their gossip and giggles on Twitter. But there may be method to the madness. OOXML is already approved by ISO JTC1. Microsoft no longer needs to persuade the national bodies or influence the press or call out their business partners. It is enough for them to rely on social engineering in SC34, shmoozing, sponsorships, free dinners, free beer, etc.

The reporting of Groklaw about the Microsoft outbursts of unfiltered truth and sillyness made Alex Brown hit back to BRM allegations and he claims the British BSI did not do its job, didn't review ODF properly:

Fact is though, we (the team) did NOT read ODF - we merely made a rapid pass through parts of the text over half a day, looking for obvious problems. Even so, the UK generated by far the greatest number of NB comments. This fact tells you all you need to know about the degree of scrutiny ODF got in its JTC 1 ballot. If you believe it was studied in detail in the UK, you are very wrong. … We learned from our ODF mistake, and rectified our errors [with open xml].

Pamela Jones of Groklaw answers to his flamebait:

Now, as it happens, I have formed the impression that you and the the MS elves want to "interoperate" with ODF so Microsoft forces can take it over, since even you must now realize that OOXML will never work and will never be adopted.

What is your exit strategy?

«In order to be answered, you have to be a client of Microsoft, as by article 9 of law 54/2008, there is a "duty of cooperation" which means that the survey must be answered, says Rui Seabra, vice-president of the board of ANSOL, in the association's blog.

The survey aims to be a guide for evaluation of the risks in the area of public procurement and granting public benefits, so Rui wonders «why a Council for Corruption Prevention is benefiting Microsoft.»

A reply to a citizen's email who questioned this practice was found to be extremely revealing: it's all about vendor lock-in. An extensive analysis (in portuguese) details many technical misconsiderations made by the Account's Court, some of them quite unreasonable:

• that Microsoft's binary and XML formats are open standards
• considers Microsoft's OSP an acceptable software license
• that since they use Microsoft, others must use Microsoft
• OpenDocument Format is used by a small number of people (perhaps the state should not have wheelchair ramps since wheelchairs are used by a small number of people), and would require installing third party software

The reply actually tries to turn the third item into the worse problem, and avoids the matter of granting an exclusive benefit to Microsoft, which would go directly against the objectives of the survey.

The conference will be held in Bucharest - details on http://www.eliberatica.ro

Romania is still a "red mark" on Microsoft's empire map: no official discussions about OpenDocument at government's level, Excel studied in Economics University (ASE http://www.ase.ro) like the Bible, no OpenOffice.org or alternative software in schools, OLPC program furiously rejected by Romania's think-tank senators ("this toy computer can't even run Microsoft Word !")…

Even Romania's president officially thanks to Bill Gates on his visit in Romania because "an entire generation of IT professionals grew up illegally copying Microsoft Office" and "Microsoft is an important, strategic partner to Romania's govermnent"…

Maybe Eliberatica it's a good occasion to inform Romanian public at large about the OOXML corruption scandal, the importance of real standards and the peril of proprietary software ?

Can someone please help?

Buy Term Paper | Term Paper

We’re going to continue working closely with others in the IT industry - customers, partners, competitors and developers, including those in open source communities. They will help identify and solve interoperability challenges. As we mentioned earlier, this is a time of change. We’ve made some progress and we’re going to continue taking steps toward fostering greater interoperability.

Also the terms openness and interoperability are embraced in the article as if the company was going to apply for OFE membership and to stop obstruction of forceful Slovak proposals in the European Parliament for better interoperability (which were initially overlooked).

We also find a reference to a public affairs forum:

One forum where this takes place is in the Interoperability Executive Customer (IEC) Council, which consists of more than 35 CIOs and CTOs from governments and leading corporations around the world. The IEC Council helps Microsoft identify and solve the top challenges facing customers today. Working with them, we’re actively resolving issues in the areas of systems management, security and identity management, as well as office productivity and collaboration tools.

Not IEC as in ISO/IEC. That acronym overlap seems to be just a coincidence. It was established in 2006 and made no significant impact on the OOXML process. Details about the process can be found here.

Anyway, what is hot? You know these PRs make you suspicious. They are usually sent out when something is going on. Texas to go for open document formats? One year old news. And I am convinced no one is aware of the Dutch economist message which could be turned into an openness tsunami in the context of recent bailout spending madness:

Governments should seriously consider to act as leading customers to enhance competition on the market for PC operating systems, office applications and enterprise content management software, suggest micro economists at the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB). Governments should also require open source software in public procurement.

The CPB economists write these three markets are 'tentative examples' of inefficient markets. Such markets suffer from vendor lock-in and the lack of competition is stifling innovation. Normal economic processes are not strong enough to correct such failing markets. "This will not lead to optimal choices of licensing, price, quality and innovation."

Paoli's colleague Craig Shank has a different concept: vendors help governments to make the most of their IT.

This is a time of change. Increasing globalization, rising Internet use, and higher consumer and business expectations are driving increased demand for technology choice and flexibility. Governments and businesses alike have assembled a diverse mix of applications and technologies from a variety of vendors. In this environment, technology can present new opportunities and deliver new solutions. Key to that is helping organizations make the most of their mixed IT environments.

"Vendor capture" as economists call that. Don't expect any trade association to lobby against it. This has to be left to common sense and the ethos of public officials who want to keep their independence. A focus on market order improvements, even in times of bulk emergency keynesian spending on broadband, green-IT and ICT education remains important. In the current situation I am sure a "microbillion" for interoperability actions can be made available in many nations around the world. Crumps for common sense, free markets and more openness.

Mandatory ODF policies are only a small step in a long transformation process in the field of communications technologies but it is time to walk the talk. The financial markets have shown that we cannot afford to lean back on the regulatory side as society as a whole suffers the consequences.

The British Library rather became a standard body puppet: aye.

Of course the Microsoft digitisation project was absolutely unrelated to their genuine interest in Open xml.

Fraunhofer Fokus is also represented in the DIN document committee for document formats. There it was a proponent of the adoption of the questionable OpenXML format while German government representatives sent furious protest letters. Now Fraunhofer is in the news again:

February 23, 2009 Microsoft partners with Fraunhofer Fokus
Fraunhofer Fokus recently announced a new project to create an IS29500-Validator and Document-Library. The project will test the validity of documents regarding conformance to ISO/IEC 29500. As part of the project activities Fraunhofer Fokus will initiate the development of an Open Source document validator.

Fraunhofer FOKUS initiates its new Document-Interoperability-Lab. The lab will test the validity of documents regarding the document-standard ISO/IEC 29500 known as Office Open XML. As part of the lab activities Fraunhofer Fokus will initiate the Open Source development of a document validator. Additionally a library consisting of valid test and template documents will be offered. Word processing, presentation as well as spreadsheet documents will be taken into consideration. Microsoft Corporation will support these activities as development partner.

The question is who will trust the research results of Fraunhofer Fokus? And why does the German tax payer invest in a research institution that sells out to companies across the Atlantic regardless of our national public interest in interoperability? For instance Fraunhofer Fokus applauded(!) the ISO adoption of Open XML.

• 2008-04-09 Fraunhofer FOKUS begrüßt die ISO-Normierung DIS 29500 von Office Open XML

Fraunhofer DIN NIA person Gerd Schürmann sent also emails that seemed to be equivalent to those of Microsoft's Mario Wendt. Let's look if the document experts can validate that. Does it make you feel comfortable that Schuermann was named for the DIN NIA 43 subcommittee which deals with translation matters of ISO/IEC 26300 (ODF) and ISO 29500 (OOXML)?

Here is what Doug Mahugh is saying on the ODF mailing-list:

It's worth noting that the ODF metadata mechanisms don't allow for the use of a private/custom schema to tag content within a document. And that use case has value to many users. So if we decide that ODF won't be able to support those types of scenarios, for whatever reason, we should not be surprised to find that users who need such capabilities will look elsewhere.

Consider the trivial example of a pre-existing document, created years ago, which needs to be logged in to a content management system that requires an abstract to be identified for each document. If the format of the document is HTML, then a div with class="abstract" can be used to tag the appropriate paragraph(s) as the abstract. If the format of the document is DOCX, a customXml element with element="abstract" can be used for the same purposes. In both cases the document content remains valid HTML or WordprocessingML, while the user adds the custom semantics required for their purpose. The custom semantics can be (and should be) ignored by others. The user is free to innovate quickly, and does not have to think in terms of a tradeoff between strict compliance and flexibility/business value. They can, and do, have the best of both worlds in such scenarios: strict compliance to a standard, and freedom to innovate quickly for their own specialized purposes.

I think ODF would benefit from being as supportive of such scenarios as HTML, IS29500 and other formats already are. No committee can anticipate every possible class of extension that users might find useful, so I think the format itself should allow for clean, simple tagging of content according to schemas that may never be standardized, and may never be widely known or used. Done correctly, such tagging puts no burden on simple interoperability between word processors (which typically ignore it), but can enable other types of interoperability that many people find valuable.

- Doug

There is only one way to do interoperability at Microsoft: embrace and extend. "Freedom to innovate" here means "Freedom to embrace and extend", or "Freedom for Microsoft to add proprietary patented extensions that makes users dependent on Microsoft technologies".

Time to join the ODF TC!

An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.
In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker would have to host a Web site that contains an Office file that is used to attempt to exploit this vulnerability. In addition, compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability. An attacker would have no way to force users to visit a malicious Web site. Instead, an attacker would have to persuade them to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link that takes them to the attacker's site.
The vulnerability cannot be exploited automatically through e-mail. For an attack to be successful a user must open an attachment that is sent in an e-mail message. Users who have installed and are using the Office Document Open Confirmation Tool for Office 2000 will be prompted with Open, Save, or Cancel before opening a document.

So users probably should be very cautious with .xlsx files sent to them until the risks are contained through security updates.

Background:

• PCmag
• Security Focus

Michael Dell might think twice about dishing out a sales pitch to a world leader in the future after Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin very publicly dissed his patronising offer of help. … After praising the country's technical deftness, Dell-boy asked the ex-KGB agent: "How can we as an IT sector help you broaden the economy as you move out of a crisis and take advantage of that great scientific talent that you have?" … "We don't need any help," he barked. "We are not invalids. We don't have limited capacity. Pensioners should be helped, developing countries should be helped."

It's fortunate that it didn't start pointing to an adult-related site… lol.

Keep in mind it is 'just' oil and gas. Petrol is elementary to keep you warm and your car running. You can buy it on a world market from multiple sources. Only oil companies and leftists believe that you need to go to war to secure access to petrol resources. But what about the real dependencies of regions like Europe on software and standards? The Russians are here about to lower these strategic dependencies in their national interest. The Open XML standardisation effort has shown to players in the IT business how ruthless it gets when strategic concerns come into play, and multinational corporations and governments are not much different here.

Most governments around the world already have a national operating system, it is called Windows and their tax payers have to pay large amounts of money for this national 'choice' to an American company. Fortunately it also contributes to the functioning of the political system through sponsoring of regulatory action, new career perspectives for politicians, sponsoring of an EU Presidency or reform of 'open standards' requirements. Ireland is a good place to base your software licensing business as the Irish government helps you with tax evasion.

A good reason why governments need Windows is an Office application and you can say it is their National Office Application. It only runs on Windows, has a cousin on the Mac and tinkerers sometimes manage to get it work under Linux occasionally, perhaps. Just ask, you find so many good excuses why it became their National Office Application and why they want it to remain their Office application. For instance because governments urgently need the Office software to process the files other people with the same software sent to them. Thus some governments backed the standardisation of the proprietary format through ISO. The OOXML saga.

Other governments want to be able to switch to other products or actually do that. Most of them migrate to Staroffice or [OpenOffice.org] which support the ODF format and the old binary doc format out of the box. Government agencies understand that a creation of an international standard as ODF was crucial to reduce their switching costs, they understood that only strong economic pressure would force Microsoft into full ODF compliance. Some governments also understand that you have to invest into alternative products and migration studies to further reduce the dependencies and built up the market pressure for interoperability.

I wonder if Russia will consider to develop its national word processor as well. A wise Russian will understand the danger to their national independence that a support for the Open XML format instead of ODF bears. If they have no opportunity but to chose Open XML it shows that their national independence is already compromised. When I went to the military part of the mission of military service was to shield our nation from foreign extortion. I wonder how these institutions can contribute to liberate our nations from these dependencies. Guns and nukes do not seem to help against the viral software sales model from Redmond. A clear software and interoperability strategy and effective action does help, as long as governments do not fraternise with the opponent of their national interest.