[357] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] What's Up Doc? -- Chicago Politics Meets
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Mon Jun 16 15:25:16 2008
Message-Id: <200806161902.m5GJ2AtX006388@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:02:10 -0700
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
What's Up Doc? -- Chicago Politics Meets Microsoft's OOXML
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000391.html
Greetings. Though we may think of corporations as being entities
unto themselves -- and in a legal sense they are in many ways -- in
reality even the largest are of course actually made up of people.
If you want a way to peer into the minds and sensibilities of the
folks running any particular firm, observing the methodologies that
they use to try advance their agendas is at least as illuminating as
looking at the resulting policies and outcomes themselves.
It's been popular for years in various quarters to bash Microsoft.
Some of the criticisms are well deserved, others are not. I've
personally always tried to keep as objective a keel as possible on
this score.
But a theme that has frequently emerged when folks are critical of
MS is the concept that Microsoft is a serial bully in its business
practices. Software licenses that bully. Distribution agreements
that bully. OS integration architectures that bully. And so on.
The bullying question has come up again in the context of the recent
attempt by Microsoft to forcibly acquire Yahoo -- a sequence that
while officially ended is viewed as only being in temporary
suspended animation by many observers. And while it is undoubtedly
true that mistakes by Yahoo management set the stage for the takeover
attempt, the attitude of MS in this instance, even while it was
obvious that the attempt itself would likely drive significant Yahoo
talent to seek more stable environs, seems to carry MS' business
bullying signature.
But there's a current case of MS playing hardball outside normal
bounds that you may never have heard about, even though it could very
well affect you negatively in the wallet and in other unfortunate
ways down the line. And in some respects it's even more
illuminating. As usual, MS isn't the only player involved, and
while the underlying issues are rather technical, many of the
associated methods would seem rather familiar to any student of the
old Chicago political machine.
I won't even attempt to get into the deep details here. Head over to
Google, and search for:
microsoft ooxml
... then spend the next few hours enjoying the tale in all its sordid
glory. I strongly recommend doing this on an empty stomach.
The micro-synopsis is that over a number of years, a crucial ISO
(International Organization for Standardization) process -- that
will deeply affect how documents will be edited, manipulated,
processed, and published -- has essentially been hijacked by
Microsoft.
Microsoft's goal has been to make their own grossly bloated (6500+
pages!) and in many ways flawed "OOXML" document format the
standard for the foreseeable future, instead of the existing, much
more reasonably sized, and easily extensible Open Document Format
(ODF). Document formats matter. They have impacts on everything
from portability, to privacy, to the costs associated with word
processing software and systems.
You've gotta be careful when reading the many sources you'll find on
the OOXML topic -- and keeping events in chronological order is
crucial. The plotline has more twists and turns than Colossal Cave,
and more ways to confuse than cheap vodka.
My favorite character in the story is the gigantic OOXML document
format itself, which might be classified as a deadly weapon if
printed and then dropped from a low-flying aircraft.
Unnecessarily massive and complex specs are bad enough, but when the
time to review such abominations is reduced to ridiculously short
periods as in this case, the circumstances border on the Twilight
Zone -- or late night legislative dealings in Congress -- take your
pick. Blind everyone with volume, make sure there isn't time to
properly read and analyze the material, then ram it all home for
approval. "Fairness? We don't need no stinkin' fairness!"
And remember, if it looks like you're going to lose a key approval
vote, be sure to use whatever underhanded techniques are necessary
to win. In Chicago, the traditional method of choice was to make
sure that every man, woman, child, and even deceased citizens would
register the "proper" vote -- ideally multiple times in each
election. In Microsoft's OOXML world, the parallel approach is to
arrange for emerging countries that previously had no apparent
interest in the proceedings to suddenly appear, vote for the
Microsoft side, then conveniently vanish back into standards
obscurity -- a procedural coup that is currently the subject of
official protests filed with the ISO.
At this late stage of the game, it appears difficult to derail the
OOXML blunderbuss, though with such wide support for the much more
sensible ODF format by institutions around the world, it's just
possible that the end result may not be quite the steamroller effect
in terms of OOXML uptake that Microsoft has been counting on.
But this entire affair most certainly represents a teachable moment
- -- something of a x-ray image of Microsoft's soul -- or rather the
souls of its management, since as I noted at the outset, even
Microsoft is made of people -- but then again, so was Soylent Green.
If those people wish to play fair, all the more power to them.
However, if they choose to play fast, play loose, and play the bully
in their dealings with the international technical community, you
end up with organizations and individuals much less worthy of our
respect and patronage -- both now and in any future considerations
and deliberations.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
