We shall go on to the end,...we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…
- Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940
If there was any doubt left in anyone's mind that Microsoft will do everything that it can, and wherever it must, to ensure that ODF makes the minimum inroads possible into its vastly profitable Office franchise, the news of the day should put that doubt to rest. In the continuing tit for tat battle between ODF and OOXML, Microsoft announced yesterday it's own interoperability project to bridge the gap between China's domestically developed Unified Office Format (UOF) and Microsoft's OOXML. The announcement tracks the intent of an already-existing "harmonization" committee, hosted by OASIS, that is exploring interoperability options between ODF and UOF, and also underlines Microsoft's increasing focus on the vast Chinese market.
This news is no surprise, in one sense. Microsoft has been waging a nation-by-nation battle for the hearts and minds of ISO/IEC JTC1 National Bodies, in an effort to win adoption of OOXML (now Ecma 376) as a global standard with equal status to ODF (now ISO 26300). In order to do so, it needs to offset the argument that one document format standard is not only enough, but preferable. With UOF representing a third entrant in the format race, easy translation of documents created using the competing formats would obviously be key to lessen the burden on customers. Moreover, last month, Sun Microsystems Chairman Scott McNealy called for the outright merger of UOF and ODF in a speech he delivered in Beijing – just a few days before Bill Gates arrived to keynote a Microsoft conference being held nearby.
My, my, how's anyone with a blog supposed to get his day job done this week? Bob Sutor at IBM just sent me to his writeup on Microsoft's latest release, titled (the press release, that is), "Microsoft Votes for Choice." The lead paragraph reads:
Microsoft Corp. today announced that it has voted to support the addition of OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.0 to the nonexclusive American National Standards list. The vote took place as part of a process managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
That's a good thing, right? Well, yes, it is, as far as the vote goes. But when was the last time you saw a vendor issue a press release about one of the many standards votes it casts on an ongoing basis? Bob highlights the language from the press release that makes it clear that the PR motive for the release is to pave the way for the eventual submission of Ecma 376 (the Microsoft OOXML format) for similar approval:
Another new standard that the company anticipates will be approved for ANSI’s list is the recently ratified ECMA Open XML File Formats. Known in standards-body circles as ECMA-376, the new open standard is under review by ISO, with a final vote expected in late 2007 or early 2008 following a ballot vote in early September.
Rather than repeat what Bob has already concisely stated, you should read his argument that we need fewer, rather than more document formats. But I can't help noting one coincidence (?) that strikes me between the timing of this press release and the Fortune article that I wrote about yesterday.
Norway is the latest European country to move closer to mandatory government use of ODF (and PDF). According to a press release provided in translation to me by an authoritative source, Norway now joins Belgium, Finland, and France (among other nations) in moving towards a final decision to require such use. The text of the press release, as well as some of the statements made at the press conference where the announcement was made, are appended at the end of this blog post.
The Norwegian recommendation was revealed by Minister of Renewal Heidi Grande Roys, on behalf of the Cabinet-appointed Norwegian Standards Council. If adopted, it would require all government agencies and services to use these two formats, and would permit other formats (such as OOXML) to be used only in a redundant capacity. Reflecting a pragmatic approach to the continuing consideration of OOXML by ISO/IEC JTC 1, the recommendation calls for Norway to "promote the convergence of the ODF and OOXML, in order to avoid having two standards covering the same usage."
According to the press release, the recommendation will be the subject of open hearings, with opinions to be rendered to the Cabinet before August 20 this summer. The Cabinet would then make its own (and in this case binding) recommendation to the Norwegian government.
Robin Cover's XML Daily Newslink yesterday, one of my "must reads" (you can sign up for a free subscription at newsletter-subscribe@xml.coverpages.org), included a note on the formation of the Concordia Working Group by the Liberty Alliance Project (LAP). The story caught my eye for three reasons: it addresses a real problem, it's using an increasingly common approach to do so, and it's advancing the state of the art at the same time in a new and interesting way. I'd like to look at each of those reasons in greater detail.
First, let's review the real world problem: LAP is wrestling with a frustration that concerns us all: how can we take advantage of all that the Internet can offer without (a) having our privacy violated and our bank accounts emptied by the Bad Guys, while (b) not being driven crazy by endless user IDs, passwords, and other safeguards thrown up to deal with (a)? Or, as LAP more elegantly phrases it:
The vision of Liberty Alliance is to enable a networked world based on open standards where consumers, citizens, businesses and governments can more easily conduct online transactions while protecting the privacy and security of identity information. This world, where devices and identities of all kinds are linked by federation and protected by universal strong authentication, is being built today with Liberty’s open identity standards, business and deployment guidelines and best practices for managing privacy.
The second reason is also systemic, but in a different way, as this Working Group is the latest in a series of initiatives born of the realization that it's increasingly rare for single standards organizations to be able to solve real-world problems for end-users, as compared to point solutions for vendors. The reasons include that there are two many moving parts, too many different organizations involved in standardizing those parts, and too much that has to happen quickly in order to keep up with technical innovation and commercial exploitation of new technologies.
The recent announcement of a new standard for "slipperiness" reminded me not only of the seemingly infinite, and at times surprising, types of standards we find we cannot live without, but also of the linkage between language and standards.
The standard in question was developed by the Entertainment Services and Technology Association (ESTA), one of those worthy standards development organizations that may somehow have escaped your notice to date. According to the
ESTA Web site, its core mission is "Building the Business of Show Business," and in support of that quest, its Floors Working Group developed what it calls
BSR E1.34-200x, Entertainment Technology - Measuring and Specifying the Slipperiness of Floors Used in Live Performance Venues.
If one were so inclined, one might wonder whether it is more surprising that the world has existed so long without a way to measure the slipperiness of the floors of live performance venues, or that someone has now taken the time and effort to plug that remarkably small gap (odds are that your wonder may incline towards the latter). Still, as noted in the announcement, "It is axiomatic that you can't manage what you can't measure," and if you're in the Business of Building Show Business, I guess it's quite plausible that you might find yourself in need of managing the slipperiness of live performance venues as well.
I've gotten behind in blogging the past two weeks, due to travel and other writing chores. One of the news items I should have commented on earlier was the Linux Foundation's announcement last week that it has established a travel fund for open source developers.
/>The idea behind the fund is that while open source software is created globally and virtually, there's just no substitute sometimes for face-to-face collaboration. Of course, many of the events where this occurs are global as well, and therefore liberally spread about the world's landscape. While travel to key gatherings may be feasible for those with corporate support, some of the real forces behind important open source projects don't have the wherewithal to contribute to, or simply enjoy, the process in this fashion. That's where the travel fund comes in.
The Linux Foundation is a natural place to provide this type of support, given its mission, which is to promote, protect and standardize Linux by "providing unified resources and services needed for open source to successfully compete with closed platforms." One good use for the substantial dues that for-profit members contribute is to subsidize the participation of those who contribute in non-monetary ways. That's what the "unified resources" bit is all about. Another bit is providing some of the key events that developers can attend to advance the common cause.
The first such conference will be an invitation-only meeting to be held on June 13-15 at Google's Mountainview Campus in the Bay Area. That event is intended to:
Over the last several months I have spoken at conferences and symposia in places as widely dispersed as Washington and Cambridge, Beijing and New Haven. In each case, the topic was the intersection of standards and the public interest, comprehending new concepts such as the "knowledge commons" and increasing importance of "cyberinfrastructure," and issues such as government's responsibility to utilize appropriate standards to safeguard the future of public documents, and the best way to ensure that the promise of information and communications technologies (ITC) is fulfilled in developing nations. These gatherings have been held under the auspices of institutions as diverse as the National Academies and the United Nations Development Programme, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the United States – European Commission Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, and the Law Schools of Harvard and Yale Universities.
The fact that so many people are meeting in so many venues to discuss standards in non-technical contexts demonstrates the fact that something new and important is at work here. And the fact that many of these conferences are taking place in academic and government venues suggests that people are still trying to figure out what it's all about.
Microsoft-Samsung pact includes Linux patent 'protection'
Provision raises specter of controversial claim by Steve Ballmer
April 18, 2007 (Computerworld) --Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday signed a broad cross-licensing agreement with close partner Samsung Electronics Co. that includes a controversial provision granting the Korean electronics conglomerate rights to patents that Microsoft claims have been illegally borrowed by the Linux operating system. Samsung is the third company to ink a similar cross-licensing pact, which critics said de facto advances Microsoft’s unproven claims to Linux-related intellectual property…[full story]
Well, there they go again. With the prolifieration of all these Linux "protection" cross licenses, one can't help asking a few questions. Such as whether Microsoft will ever reveal its mysterious patents, so that Linux users and distro vendors can decide whether or not they agree with Microsoft's contentions? And whether, if all of the terms of each deal were known, would it really appear that Microsoft's partners really thought there was much substance to those patent claims at all? And finally, where will it all end?
I don't know the answers to the first two questions, but I thought I'd take a crack at the last one. Here you go:
Microsoft-Kellogg's pact includes Froot Loops trademark 'protection'
Provision will protect breakfast cereal vendor and its customers form IPR liability
April 20, 2007 (BreakfastBowlToday) – Microsoft today announced that it had entered into a trademark cross license agreement with leading cereal vendor Kellogg's, granting the grocery giant the right to continue to use the name "Froot Loops" to describe its popular children's cereal. "Everybody knows computer software uses loops, and any one who has ever had their Windows-based computer freeze up knows it has infinite loops," said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Ballmer stated that the Redmond giant had no choice but to threaten litigation in order to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation."
Trademark experts were taken by surprise that Kellogg's felt realistically threatened. Boston-based attorney Susan Mulholland, a partner at technology boutique Gesmer Updegrove, observed, "It's absurd for a software vendor to claim that there could be any confusion between a software bug and a colorful breakfast cereal." Not so, according to a Microsoft legal spokesman: "Microsoft has always cared about the total user experience. Developers enjoy breakfast cereal at their computers all the time, and many programmers I know are very easily confused."
As I expect you are already aware, Fortune Magazine's Roger Parloff has authored an in-depth, and extremely well written, article called