ISO Says No To Microsoft's OOXML Standard

qcomp writes "The votes are in and Microsoft has lost for now, reports the FFII's campaign website OOXML. The 2/3 majority needed to proceed with the fast-track standardization has not been achieved. Now the standard will head to the ballot resolution meeting to address the hundreds of technical comments submitted along with the votes." Here is yesterday's speculation as to how the vote would turn out.

It ain't over yet...

It ain't over 'till the fat man throws a chair...

Re:It ain't over yet...

Actually of the 26 latest P-members, 21 voted 'YES', 1 voted 'NO' and 4 abstained.

You could have said that and people would have believed you, so why lie?

Re:It ain't over yet...

Netherlands [isoc.nl] (translation/summary: they worked very hard to stay professional and to stay away from all the turmoil and study the document, and then came to a almost consensus decision to vote "disapproval with comments". Almost consensus because Microsoft alone decided to vote "yes" (with no technical reasons given) so there was no consensus, so in effect the vote of the Netherlands was vetoed. According to the NEN rules, the Netherlands had to abstain, without comments, in this case. [N.B.: I think this means also that all of the dutch technical comments (5 months of work) will not be permitted to be sent on to ISO for review - me]

The article goes on to explain that this one member isoc.nl (who is the longest sitting member of that NEN committee and voted no) finds that it would be appropriate for the submitter of a standard to refrain from voting this actively, especially because Microsoft had already given out a press release that the result would become "abstain" before the vote was actually being held. In other words, they knew they were going to sabotage(*) the dutch "no with comments" vote and told the press in advance.

Please correct any inaccuracies in my post; I really do not want to misrepresent this article, which speaks volumes for itself IMHO.

(*) original meaning of sabotage: to throw a wooden shoe into a machine to prevent it from working properly.

Re:It ain't over yet...

Have you seen the actual break down of which way countries voted? Scroll down a little way in the FTA comments and it's laid out in a table. It's amazing in that with the exception of the US, the voting is almost consistently "No" from rich, developed countries, and "Yes" from poorer Eastern European and African countries that are stereotypically more corrupt. The jokes people are making about Microsoft buying the votes of Banana Republics are not without a basis. Worth looking through the list.

familiar scenario

This is also how the International Whaling Commission [wikipedia.org] membership has been manipulated toward ending the ban on whaling:

Since the moratorium was adopted, the support for it has dropped from a 75% majority to a 50-50 split, with many of the countries initially recruited by the anti-whaling side now voting with the pro-whaling block. (A 75% majority is needed to overturn the moratorium.) Anti-whaling campaign groups and some governments claim that the Japanese Fisheries Agency has carried out a programme of "vote-buying" - i.e. offering aid to poorer countries in return for them joining the IWC and supporting Japanese positions on whaling. Specifically, Japan has given US$320 million in overseas aid to Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Guinea, Morocco, Panama, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis and the Solomon Islands.

Re:It ain't over yet...

It was expected to be "No" from the US too, up until a couple of weeks ago when Gates/Ballmer made a few calls to people in high places (Secretary of Commerce, if I remember right). Several of the other US govt groups (DOD, Homeland Security) had agreed to go along with however NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) voted. Guess who NIST reports to. Yep, it's part of the Dept. of Commerce.

I hope folks at NIST are suitably embarrassed about approving such a shoddy spec as a standard, regardless of who it came from.

Re:It ain't over yet...

Have you seen the actual break down of which way countries voted? Scroll down a little way in the FTA comments and it's laid out in a table. It's amazing in that with the exception of the US, the voting is almost consistently "No" from rich, developed countries, and "Yes" from poorer Eastern European and African countries that are stereotypically more corrupt. The jokes people are making about Microsoft buying the votes of Banana Republics are not without a basis. Worth looking through the list.

Well, here in Portugal the "comission" was chaired by Microsoft, more than half the other "representatives" were MS affiliates and, get this, Sun and IBM were not allowed because "there weren't enough chairs". No ammount of protesting by companies or organisations like ANSOL (FSF Europe affiliate in Portugal) had great effect as you can imagine.

After reading your comment I initially though "well, we were part of the almost, an exception to the rule", but to be blunt the truth is that *this is* a Bananas' Republic: only in one would the above happen.

Re:It ain't over yet...

I think the people that talked Cuba and Syria into voting for MS OOXML should have some kind of award.

"Please vote for our standard. BTW we make the only software can use it properly and we wont sell it to you".
http://www.microsoft.com/exporting/faq.htm [microsoft.com]

Re:It ain't over yet...

And no, I don't really have a solution to the problem. But I could offer a few suggestions to improve this situation. 1) You have to be a dues paying member for three years before you get a vote. That stops countries from being induced to jump in for one vote. 2) You have to be in the top half (two thirds, whatever) of nations in the general industry you want to vote in standards for. That means Cyprus, etc., not being known for their software industry probably wouldn't have been allowed a vote on OOXML. Unfair? Yes, but life isn't fair and giving them a vote is more unfair to everyone else. Perhaps give all the small fry a subcommittee that gets a couple of votes if they are mostly in consensus on an issue. 3) Punish entites who openly game the system like Microsoft is doing. Say toss all MIcrosoft reps from ISO sponsored groups for five years and publicly rebuke national bodies who allowed their votes to be openly rigged.

I would change that to:

1) You have to be a dues paying member prior to the submission for consideration in order to vote on that submission. That stops countries from being induced to jump in simply to influence the voting on that one issue.

2) You have to participate in a majority of the discussions (say 75 percent) in order to vote (no last minute O->P upgrades of NBs which had not been involved in any of the discussions).

3) Representatives of the organization requesting the submission are disqualified from voting in any National Body (ECMA in this case).

4) Representatives of any company or organization involved in creating the specification of the proposed standard are disqualified from voting in any National Body (ECMA and Microsoft in this case).

5) Any National Body which is found to have irregularities in their process would be disqualified from participation in all votes for a period of time (say 1 year for the first offense, 5 years for the second). There are two many instances to list.

Re:It ain't over yet...

It ain't over 'till the fat man throws a chair...

Interesting you should say that:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070718060228231 [consortiuminfo.org]

OOXML is not to everyone's liking, with Sun Microsystems being denied a seat, and Microsoft holding the chair (President) ...

Re:Pursuit

You are an American, I guess, by your immediate recourse to legal action as the solution to every problem? That may well be the best way to solve the problems with the ANSI committee, I honestly wouldn't know, but I can certainly say that in most other parts of the world, legal action would be about the last thing that is needed (except in cases where there was provable fraud, or some other illegal occurrence, but I suspect the number of such cases where it could be proven in a court of law is approximately zero). International standards work because of goodwill and cooperation between interested parties. Without this, there is no point having a standard in the first place. Microsoft (or at least some sections of Microsoft) clearly has a different view of how standards work, and also they clearly have no shame. IMHO they are beyond redemption, but they are just one company, and only plays a small part of the overall ISO organization. The committees responsible for the future progress of OOXML need to get back to focussing on technical issues, how to best proceed to come up with a workable standard, and get rid of the politics. (My personal feeling is that there is no way to achieve a workable ISO standard out of the current OOXML spec, but who knows, stranger things have happened.) A lot of things about the OOXML vote have no precedent in ISO history, and probably some ISO and/or National Body procedures will be changed as a result. Forcing these changes by legal action would be expensive and counterproductive, and in the process surely lose the goodwill of the member nations.

Re:It ain't over yet...

Go ahead and accuse Microsoft of bribing the electorate, but FFII gets to offer a 'prize' to people who lobby against OOXML and nobody bats an eyelid.

You do realize that there is a difference between paying people to lobby and paying people to vote a certain way, right?

By your logic, bribing a Senator is no worse than giving money to the AARP.

The Delivery

Faux standard was not certified.
[A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ail?

Re:The Delivery

Faux standard was not certified.
[A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ail?

That is the DOS error message.. these are Vista days.

It appears Microsoft is polluting the ISO and offering gold to their 'Gold' partners...

Cancel / Allow ?

Re:The Delivery

Hi! I see you are trying to ram a ill conceived standard through ISO. Would you like me to

1. Bribe a bunch of guys to vote yes for you?

2. Provide a specification thats so incomprehensible the only Word will be able to fully implement it?

3. Make dubious FUD statements about OpenDocument?

You forgot

4. All of the above

Re:The Delivery

Cancel / Allow ?

Don't you mean "Yes / Yes, with comments"?

Can a committee stop the rotation of the Earth?

This move is a non-story because regardless of what the ISO approves or disapproves, Microsoft will continue to go the way they want to go and the 90% of the Office customer base will follow them, just as will the pre-install bundled customers. Other office suites are advised to ignore the upcoming de facto standard at their own peril.

But now...

...Microsoft doesn't have the air of legitimacy that ISO approval would have brought.

Re:But now...

...Microsoft doesn't have the air of legitimacy that ISO approval would have bought

Here, fixed it for you!

Re:Can a committee stop the rotation of the Earth?

Where it may (if Microsoft ultimately fails) effect their business is when governments and organizations began demanding things be stored in open formats. If OOXML isn't recognized by bodies like the ISO as an open format, it could be the first very big chink in Microsoft's armor.

Dr. Claw....

I'll get you next time, Gadget! Next time!

Good for...

The banks will be happy with the fresh large money transfers

Hurrah!

A small victory, but an important one. Maybe Massachusetts [fsf.org] can now be persuaded to move to an actual open, easy-to-implement and reliable standard to preserve government records. It can join [odfalliance.org] Russia and Norway in using ODF.

Not likely

The first time they chose ODF, that was about doing a standard. Now the OOXML is about buyouts, and has nothing to do with standards.

System continues to work

Film at 11.

Of course, Microsoft will address the changes and probably buy a few more votes. Their timetable is probably still not in jeopardy.

Like Jason at Halloween, they will just keep coming.

Re:System continues to work

So can IBM and Sun. Votes at standard bodies are not that expensive. On top of that as the IEEE 802.11 work proves pulling a filibuster at a standard's setting meeting is absolutely trivial. By the time all comments are handled and by the time it is approved most of us will be retired anyway. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:System continues to work

Of course, Microsoft will address the changes and probably buy a few more votes. Their timetable is probably still not in jeopardy.

If Microsoft addressed all the concerns, then they would likely have an open standard. Microsoft won't do that, because within a few months of them having an open standard, OpenOffice and KOffice will have OOXML support.

I wonder?

Can they re-try the fast track again, or is this forever tabled? If forever tabled, than ISO will be useless to MS. They would need to explain ALL of their work and they do not even know it, let alone explain it to others. Basically, iso for MS would be dead.

Re:I wonder?

This was their one chance to fast track. That's meant for excellent standards that have no dissenting views, and no discernible problems. Now they have to address the problems.

I rather suspect that OOXML is in fact dead, even if they eventually manage to get an ISO certification. Its too late now. After all ODF is already an ISO, easier to implement then OOXML, patent free, with no issues of any type whatsoever. People will choose it simply because its the better format. OOXML will be what people use if they must interact with Microsoft office.

Re:I wonder?

OOXML will be what people use if they must interact with Microsoft office.

In other words, OOXML will be what everyone uses?

Great.

How bad is this?

If Microsoft did force their "standard" on people, how much would it cripple the marketplace? Already at work we are dealing with Microsoft's proprietory components causing a severe case of "haves vs have-nots" in file sharing. And what is most fustrating, is how people do not grasp what they are doing, in that using the proprietory components, they are locking out their co-workers, reducing work output as we have to get them to export their documents into a more generally accepted form. And they turn around and blame the majority of the office. Too sad.

Re:How bad is this?

If Microsoft did force their "standard" on people, how much would it cripple the marketplace?

It wouldn't cripple a market but their monopoly status continues to destroy wealth, eliminate efficiency through interoperability, and chill innovation. Your story clearly highlights the lack of interoperability and inefficiency achieved through forcing upgrades.

This issue is critical and I don't count Microsoft out for the count. It will not surprise me when they play more parliamentary tricks. It remains to be seen how much money it takes to buy an ISO standard.

Re:How bad is this?

There is no way to prevent it from happening, if you'standardize' on MS Office document formats.

Even if every company that you ever have to deal with in the history of your company's existance uses MS Office, you will still have a multitude of problems sharing documents between people that use Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, and god forbid, even earlier versions. Don't believe me? Get a random sampling of Office 2007 documents and open them up on the equivalent tools in an Office 2003 or Office XP suite.

All it takes is for one customer to modify a sales order that you sent them in Word 2003 format, and save it in Word 2007 format before sending it back to you to cause you a load of grief. If you haven't experienced this with the MS formats, perhaps you have been in a position where you are only sharing documents with other folks internal to your company that are on the same version? Or perhaps the documents you use are simple enough thta the differences in formatting between versions was not evident?

The problem is real, as this is how MS has designed the formats - to produce false incentives to 'upgrade' to the latest version of Office.

Re:How bad is this?

Anecdote time.

About a year ago, a client of mine gave me a PDF and some source files and said "We can't edit this. Please fix the problem." The document itself was in Word 2.0. The graphics were WMFs. This thing had been originally created in Windows 3.1 and updated (with the WMFs) in Windows 95. The client couldn't open up any of it.

The Word file was basically a non-starter. I just ignored it and stripped the text out of the PDF instead. The graphics, though...The PDF refused to be opened properly in Illustrator, so I couldn't recover them that way. I also could not open the WMFs directly -- it was something about how they were tied to the original platform. What I ended up doing was digging up an ancient copy of Windows and and ancient copy of Illustrator, building a custom machine just for this operation, and recovering the files that way. The client paid about $3,000 for the privilege of being able to update one of their own files. Just one file, mind, and it had yet to be actually updated -- this was simply establishing the ability to update. All because they were couldn't see what a bad idea it was to invest their data in lock-in formats.

When I explained to the client how they had gotten into this mess, and how they could avoid it in the future, they stared blankly back. We use up-to-date versions of Word now, they said.

Oh, well, I thought, here comes another few grand in my pocket. But then again, in another few years, maybe nobody has these old copies of Windows and old copies of Illustrator anymore, and then they are SOL.

Still not official

The linked article above states the presumed "No" vote to be unofficial and according to unamed "sources". This could well go the other way and in fact be approved. Any celebration should wait until ISO offically releases the voting results.

I no longer presume "sources" to have any credibility.

Re:Still not official

The linked article above states the presumed "No" vote to be unofficial and according to unamed "sources". This could well go the other way and in fact be approved. Any celebration should wait until ISO offically releases the voting results.

Like here? [iso.org]

Sesostris III

Good

Because, as a Microsoft dev myself I like to think the technology field I base myself in is popular based on technical merits rather than stupid market hacking. Tactics like the OOXML fiasco only distract people from the actual benefits of MS technology.

Remember folks, for a company of several hundred thousand, unfortunately not all are going to be good guys - theres plenty more that are however.

Flame away.

Re:Good

The "backwards compatibility" talk is all FUD really...
Backwards compatibility should be handled by the converter, and shouldn't pollute the format itself.

Re:Good

As a disgruntled Microsoft customer, I'd like to ask "WTF?!"

Seriously, I don't believe the devs working within the company are bad, but you guys need to stage an uprising or something. The people running your company seem to be total dicks.

WTF? This is insightful?

As a disgruntled Microsoft customer, I'd like to ask "WTF?!"

Seriously, I don't believe the devs working within the company are bad, but you guys need to stage an uprising or something.

YOU are the customer! You are paying Microsoft to continue with their existing tactics. YOU are the cause!

FFS! Take some responsibility for your actions people.

 

Re:WTF? This is insightful?

This "vote with your feet" bs needs to stop, seriously. It takes an overly simplistic look at the way a market actually functions in the real world -- which is not the same as the way it functions in this libertarian day dream. The fundamental problem with libertarianism is that it treats all markets as if they were perfectly competitive markets with low barriers to entry, when in reality, the vast majority of them are not.

If you seriously believe that substituting away from Windows, or from Word, is something that the vast majority of people here can actually do, then you're absolutely wrong. Listen, I don't own a Windows system -- I use Debian GNU/Linux exclusively. But Word and Windows are the defacto standard and living outside of that standard is impossible. Let's look at the facts:

1. Windows comes pre-installed on most any computer you buy. Microsoft does not give this away for free, the OEM pays for it, and so everytime you purchase a computer, regardless of what OS you install, you give MS income. This may be changing, but it hasn't yet. Laptops in particular are still basically impossible to buy without paying the Microsoft tax.
2. Windows is by far and away the most common corporate desktop, and for 99% of us, we have no choice whatsoever in what gets installed on our computers at work. Since this is also where MS makes the bulk of its money, how do you propose that we vote with our feet, exactly?
3. Even for those of us that are in the position to make corporate desktop installation decisions, there are many secondary factors that we need to consider when we decide what sort of machine to purchase. Like, does it run the software that we need to use? If it's not Windows, probably not. There's more than just Office you know. What about all the Windows-only corporate internal stuff produced by braindead MSCEs over the last ten years that the entire company now depends on? Do you think replacing it, doing it all over, is easy or cost-effective? How do you justify a switch to Linux or Mac to the bean counters when all that stuff needs to be dealt with?

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is massive inertia in the industry. Everyone runs Windows, and that keeps everyone else running Windows. "Just don't buy MS" is the most ridiculous statement in the world. Sure, if everyone stopped, then that would hurt their bottom-line. But even if every Slashdotter ever stopped buying Windows, MS would still be making billions. Every time a court slaps a fine of a hundred million dollars on MS, everyone on Slashdot whines about how it's a slap on the wrist and nothing more, because the company makes so much money it's sick. The exact same logic applies here.

What you're suggesting would only work if a large percentage of MS's clients all defected. It's like saying, "Big Oil acting badly? Just don't buy oil! That'll teach 'em!"

Come on, this isn't a perfectly competitive market. It's a monopoly. There's a reason economists think that those are bad.

Re:WTF? This is insightful?

Non sequitor. So what if Windows comes preinstalled on most PCs?

We're talking office document formats, and Open Office (among others) works just fine on Windows. A lock-in to Windows != a lock-in to MS Office.

This is insightful?

Re:Good? I think it's rotten!

as a Microsoft dev myself I like to think the technology field I base myself in is popular based on technical merits rather than stupid market hacking. Tactics like the OOXML fiasco only distract people from the actual benefits of MS technology.

There's a saying where I live that goes... "You just need to sample a single grain of rice to judge an entire pot..." Microsoft's dubious and nefarious tactics wrt OOXML have shown them to be ruthless cowards; and enemies of technical merit; as software developers like you must know.

Other than rewriting the same code every 3 years when MS decides to rebrand an technology and stop supporting old versions... what are these 'benefits' you see in MS technology? Spreading disinformation amongst the developer community is a very grave sin, in my book... much worse than 'Get the Facts' aimed at consumers.

Re:Good

OOXML is clearly designed to look like a standard, if you take the "executive view" and don't really look at it, while it's really just another locked-in format.

So let's put it this way, Is Microsoft AFRAID of a level playing field?

If they were serious about the whole standards thing, they could just add real ODF support. Then they could simply put out MS Office that worked with ODF, and most people and businesses would STILL buy it, even with alternatives available. Beyond that, since they do have appear to have a head start in usability and function with MS Office, they could simply have the have the BEST office suite that happens to work with ODF file formats. Beyond that, if ODF is not sufficiently robust, MS could "play well with others" and work to add what is needed. Aren't they confident that they could still have the BEST implementation, along with "history effect"?

Does Microsoft really believe that they can't compete in an open market, without customer lock-in, or without cheating?

Re:Good

If you're a Microsoft dev, you might know: have they already sacked your colleague, the (i'm making this up)

"single disgruntled employee who singlehandedly and without authorization from his/her manager bribed the national bureaux of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte-d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba (Cuba? they're not even allowed to buy Microsoft products!), Cyprus, Egypt, Fiji, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Morocco, Kuwait, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan,

(take deep breath)

Austria, Bulgaria, Colombia, Germany (shame on you, DIN), Ghana, Greece, Kenya, Malta, Poland (only half of the committee(s)), Portugal, Singapore, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela (wait 'till someone tells Chávez [vit.com.ve] this),

(remember to breathe)

and thwarted into abstinence the votes of a.o. Malaysia, the Netherlands and Sweden",

yet? (verb at beginning of sentence)

Let's all thank the 1 country above quotum that voted no, otherwise this would have destroyed the credibility of ISO, IMHO.

Thank you VERY much, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, India, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom. I don't have money but you have my respect.

Lessons learned - the job isn't over

All the people involved in shutting down this attempt at extending a monopoly by hacking the voting system through bribery deserve a hearty congratulations in stopping this for now.

I submit though, that the job isn't over, but incomplete. The ISO seriously needs to look at fixing how Microsoft attempted to hijack the process to suit their own gain, and ignore the real purpose of International Standards.

Until this fixed, we'll see more of the same, on a greater scale. And not just by Microsoft. The end result would be the weakening of the usefulness of real standards, if the current system is left as it is.

Good luck to the ISO.