Home
Gary Edwards's Library tagged → View Popular
Antitrust & Competition : The European Union, the United States, and Microsoft: A Comparative Review of Antitrust Doctrine
Interoperability through antitrust - is there a legal foundation in place capable of pulling this off? This article is a lengthy study and comparative analysis of the legal foundation in the USA and Europe. Microsoft is of course the target.
Excerpt: Microsoft has incorporated products, such as browsers and media players, into its operating system, behavior that again amounts to technological tying. It has also improved its server software by heightening the degree to which servers employing that software can interact. By raising the level of interaction among servers equipped with its software, Microsoft has so integrated work group servers as to enable groups of small servers to approach the capacities of mainframe computers. The European competition-law authorities see both matters as problematic. The integration of the media player has been condemned as tying; and the heightened server interaction has been faulted for failing to provide the interoperability that rival server software requires in order to participate on an equal footing with Microsoft server software in Windows work groups. Microsoft’s integration (at least in the view of the European antitrust authorities) also raises issues of essential facilities, and of the role of antitrust in achieving interoperability.
. We have now reached a moment in time in which both the American and European laws are sufficiently developed to warrant reflection and comparison. That is the task approached in this article.
Three part study: Part I -The European approach. Part II-USA decisions regarding Microsoft tying. Part III-comparison of USA and European approaches to product integration (tying).
EICTA White Paper on Standardisation and Interoperability
Standardisation is one of the key facilitators for interoperability of networks, services and equipment. Interoperability in this sense has gained increasing attention and demand inthe market-place. Thus, in response to market-driven needs interoperability is becomingan important requirement in standards projects.This white paper examines the standards development process as well as the actors involved and proposes a set of recommendations in standards development that will help to address interoperability challenges that may occur and can be observed instandardisation. At the same time it provides an agreed industry position on key aspects for standards development. Observing these recommendations - as is done by a lot of actors in standardisation already, including formally established standards setting bodies - may help to increase the level of interoperability in standardisation. This white paper aims at strengthening the awareness to observe interoperability issues at an early stage and make those issues an important consideration as part of the standards-setting process. EICTA's recommendations for the standards development process:
PDF version: http://www.eicta.org/fileadmin/user_upload/document/document1166544474.pdf
Compatibility Matters: The Lessons of Massachusetts
This document discusses the primary reason ODF failed in Massachusetts: compatibility with the MSOffice productivity environment, and, the billions of binary documents in use by MSOffice bound workgroups and the business processes so important to them.
Compatibility matters: The Lessons of Massachusetts
Gary Edwards's List: Compatibility matters - The lessons of Massachusetts are many. Application level "compatibility" with existing MSOffice desktops and workgroups is vital. Format level "compatibility" with the legacy of billions of binary documents is vital. And "ecosystem" compatibility with the MSOffice productivity environment.
The better MSOffice alternative is the most compatible: SoftMaker Office bests OpenOffice.org
Article discussing the importance of office suite alternatives having a high level of comaptibility with MSOffice, the MSOffice binary formats, and the MSOffice productivity environment. ComputerWorld's Randall Kennedy has done exhaustive work comparing the conversion quality of MSOffice documents from two alternative office suites: Softmaker Office and OpenOffice.
-
Finally! Someone who gets it. For an office suite to be considered as an alternative to MSOffice, it must be designed with multiple levels of compatibility. It's not just that the "feature sets" that must be comparable. The guts of the suite must be compatible at both the file format level, and the environment level.
Randall put's it this way; "It's the ecosystem stupid".
The reason ODF failed in Massachusetts is that neither OpenOffice nor OpenOffice ODF are designed to be compatible with legacy and existing MSOffice applications, binary formats, and, the MSOffice productivity environment. Instead, OOo and OOo-ODF are designed to be competitively comparable.
As an alternative to MSOffice, OpenOffice and OpenOffice ODF cannot fit into existing MSOffice workgroups and producitivity environments. Because it s was not designed to be compatible, OOo demands that the environment be replaced, rebuilt and re-engineered. Making OOo and OOo-ODF costly and disruptive to critical day-to-day business processes.
The lesson of Massachusetts is simple; compatibility matters. Conversion of workgroup/workflow documents from the MSOffice productivity environment to OpenOffice ODF will break those documents at two levels: fidelity and embedded "ecosystem" logic.
Fidelity is what most end-users point to since that's the aspect of the document conversion they can see. However, it's what they can't see that is the show stopper. The hidden side of workgroup/workflow documents is embedded logic that includes scripts, macros, formulas, OLE, data bindings, security settings, application specific settings, and productivity environment settings. Breaks these aspects of the document, and you stop important business processes bound to the MSOffice productivity environment.
There is no such thing as an OpenOffice productivity environment designed to be a compatible alternative to the MSOffice productivity environment.
Another lesson from Massachusetts is that "rip-out-and-replace" is both costly and disruptive. If it can be done. Amazingly, the City of Munich has been working on the rip and replace of MSOffice for over six years, and they are reporting that the project is only 60% complete.
There are alternatives to rip and replace. The Massachusetts choice was to re-purpose MSOffice using an ODF plug-in approach - a clone of the Microsoft Compatibiltiy Pack if you will.
Another alternative is to design from the ground up, a highly compatible office suite that can slide into these MSOffice bound environments without show stopping disruption. Softmaker Office is not alone in this approach, with Evermore Office and ThinkFree Office also proving that a very high level of compatiblitiy with MSOffice, the MSOffice binary formats, and the MSOffice productivity environment, is possible.
Excerpt: "In the kingdom of business productivity, Microsoft Office reigns supreme. Its dominating position atop the word processing, spreadsheet, and presentations heap seems virtually unassailable. Its file formats define an industry, and its component applications are often synonymous with the underlying tasks they perform. ......"
"There's no doubt about it: Office's roots run deep -- deeper, even, than its host OS, Microsoft Windows. People talk about switching Windows versions all the time. However, few souls are willing to walk away from their current version of Office for fear of losing interoperability with their peers, a fact that makes dislodging this sprawling, well-entrenched entity all the more daunting -- though many alternative productivity suites and SaaS offerings continue to try......" - garyedwards on 2009-06-30
-
Add Sticky Note
Frankly, from Microsoft's perspective, the danger may have been overstated. Though the free open source crowd talks a good fight, the truth is that they keep missing the real target. Instead of investing in new features that nobody will use, the team behind OpenOffice should take a page from the SoftMaker playbook and focus on interoperability first. Until OpenOffice works out its import/export filter issues, it'll never be taken seriously as a Microsoft alternative.
More troubling (for Microsoft) is the challenge from the SoftMaker camp. These folks have gotten the file-format compatibility issue licked, and this gives them the freedom to focus on building out their product's already respectable feature set. I wouldn't be surprised if SoftMaker got gobbled up by a major enterprise player in the near, thus creating a viable third way for IT shops seeking to kick the Redmond habit.
- This quote is an excerpt from the article :) - on 2009-06-30
Why is Microsoft Office so hard to kill? | InfoWorld
This article compliments the previous publication, "The better Office Alternative - Softmaker Office". Good stuff!\n\nExcerpt: "It's the question that vexes free open source software advocates and commercial competitors around the globe: Why is Microsoft Office so difficult to dislodge from its perch atop the IT heap? Is it the exclusive bundling deals? The deep Software Assurance entrenchment? Steve Ballmer's backroom deal with the devil?"\n\n"The answer, of course, is none of the above (though some evidence of a Microsoft-Hell alliance exists). Rather, it's the Office ecosystem -- the vast library of third-party add-ons and vertical solutions built (with copious encouragement from Microsoft) on Office's extensive programmatic model -- that makes Microsoft's suite so hard to kill."
ODF and OOXML must converge!! AFNOR, the French Standards Body, announces proposals for revisable office document formats
-
French experts have determined that it is technically possible to converge ODF and MS-OOXML, into a single, revisable document format standard?
The plan has four parts:
"Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions."
"Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality."
"Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years."
Fourth, "Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players."
- garyedwards on 2007-09-25
-
AFNOR has recommended to ISO adopting an approach enabling it to guarantee – using ISO processes – mid-term convergence between Open Document Format (ODF) and OfficeOpen XML (OOXML), as well as the stabilisation of OOXML on a short-term basis.
-
Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions. Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality. Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years.
Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players.
Wizard of ODF: Interoperability barriers and the List Proposal Vote Deadline on Wednesday
marbux at his best.
-
this TC does not have the final word
on what goes into the ODF 1.2 spec. There is still the OASIS vote, the
JTC-1 vote, and the ISO final ballot, with a few other stops along the
way. There is also the market's response to what this TC does. Given
that no one on this TC has objected to my considerable efforts to
raise public concerns with Microsoft's ISO submission and some on this
TC have lambasted Microsoft for creating interoperability barriers,
why should this TC's members consider themselves exempt from warnings
that they have just fallen into precisely the kind of behavior we
routinely criticize when it's Microsoft that creates the
interoperability barriers. Especially when it's the end users who will
pay the price of the non-interoperability?
Document Interoperability Initiative: Appendix H
Microsoft recently released their blueprint for implementing ISO 26300 (ODF 1.0 - dated May 1, 2005), and referenced this Web site. Appendix H is interesting in that it lists 13 of the 28 contributors sponsored by The OpenDocument Foundation. This contributor list contradicts the determined liars (er, editors) at Wikipedia who insist that The OpenDocument Foundation was two guys without a garage. The OpenDocument Foundation was founded in 2005 (shortly after OASIS approval of ODF 1.0) for the express purpose of balancing out the rapidly growing participation in the ODF technical committee of corporate contributors. IBM, Oracle, Novel, Intel and Adobe led a corporate wave joining the ODF TC following the May 2005 OASIS approval of ODF 1.0 and subsequent submission to ISO. The Foundation was set up to fund the participation of expert individuals representing both open source communities and groups interested in an Open Web future.
The OpenDocument Foundation breaks with OpenOffice ODF: Getting the (Share)Point About Document Formats [LWN.net] - Gly Moody
Good article from Glynn Moody explaining the OpenDocument Foundation's decision to drop OpenOffice ODF for HTML+. That date of this article is November 13th, 2007. The Foundations announcement comes after ISO members vote down OpenXML as an ISO standard. Microsoft however does not give up. They come back to ISO by responding in detail to every objection, pushing for a February 2008 BRM. Following the BRM, and contingent on Microsoft's promise to fix OpenXML, join the OASIS OpenOffice ODF work, and, support ODF 1.1 in MSOffice using a plug-in, ISO votes again. In March of 2008, ISO approves OpenXML.
In May of 2009, Microsoft releases an MSOffice plug-in fully compliant with ODF 1.1 (ISO 26300). Although conforming to and in full compliance with ODF 1.1, the world is shocked to learn that the interop between MSOffice ODF and OpenOffice ODF is worthless. Which is exactly what the Foundation had been arguing for years. ODF "compatibility, interop and compliance" had to be fixed prior to Microsoft's expected implementation!!!!! Otherwise, ODF would be shredded.
Told you so!
-
The OpenDocument Foundation was formed in 2005, with the mission "to
provide a conduit for funding and support for individual contributors to
participate in ODF development" at the standards body OASIS.
So, at a time when backing for the ODF format seems to be gaining in
strength around the world, eyebrows were naturally raised when Sam Hiser, the
Foundation's Vice President and Director of Business Affairs,
wrote on October 16 that it was no longer supporting ODF:
In Office SP2, Microsoft manages to reduce interoperability | HoneyMonster Spells It Out
What mr. Weir and mr. Allison also don?t tell you is that controlling a standard is very much a competitive instrument. Imagine Microsoft extending Word or Excel with new capabilities (like tex-like layout rules, new graphics filters or new advanced mathematical functions). If the documents had to be saved in a format controlled by someone else, they could stall the standardization of these features until the product they support catches up. Or postpone the functions indefinitely effectively nixing the advantages. That is why Microsoft had to have a standard they could influence. That is why mr. Weir and mr. Allison are pushing ODF. While these standards now are the responsibilities of standards organizations (Oasis and Ecma for ODF and OOXML resp.), they are still very much driven by corporations with their own agendas. This is as true for ODF as it is for OOXML. That?s why we need both standards. We cannot afford corporate politics playing delaying games with our standards.
And whatever happened to the argument that a standard was important to retain document fidelity for the future? Wasn't the whole idea behind writing down the specification that the way documents render and behave would be defined by an open specification rather than an implementation (which is subject to change)? Or was that argument only valid when it could be used effectively against Word and Excel?
Double standards make me sick. Please face up to it. State that you expect Microsoft to adhere to ODF 1.2 once ratified. Until then quit trying to spin this as a defiency in MS Office. It is a failure in ODF. Owe up to it and get back to work! Please!
The real state of ODF Interoperability? There is none : Comments from the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate Review of OpenOffice and ODF
Marbux nails it again in the comments section of this obscure review. In particular, he sites <i>Shah, Rajiv C. and Kesan, Jay P.,</i><b> Lost in Translation: Interoperability Issues for Open Standards - ODF and OOXML as Examples</b>
(September 2008),
Link to paper on SSRN (compatibility fidelity comparisons of ODF implementations testing only a very small set of word processing features).
<i>"...Switching documents, I go through similar travails
with the published ODF 1.1 specification, using both the PDF and ODT versions.
Bottom line: I can't get either document into WordPerfect X3 or X4 using any rich text format. So I convert the document to plain text using Symphony and get my work done.
That is the real state of ODF interoperability. There is no such thing. But that does not stop the vested interests from claiming that there is. E.g.:"</i>
Cutting corners - the realpolitik of ODF standardisation? - The Wayback Machine Roars Reality
From Notes2Self 2006 post we discover once again that ODF Interop problems are not new. Back in early February 2005, top ranking OASIS Executive James Clark made <a href="http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200502/msg00000.html">a comment</a> to the OASIS OpenDocument technical Committee about the lack of interoperability for spreadsheet documents:
<br><br>
<i>".... I really hope I'm missing something, because, frankly, I'm speechless. You cannot be serious. <b>You have virtually zero interoperability for spreadsheet documents.</b> OpenDocument has the potential to be extraodinarily valuable and important standard. I urge you not to throw away a huge part of that potential by leaving such <b>a gaping hole in your specification</b>...".</i>
Claus Agerskov further commented that this provided a means of creating lock-in (my emphasis)
<br><br>
<i>"OpenDocument doesn't specify the formulars used in spreadsheets so every spreadsheet vendor can implement formulars in their own way without being an open standard. This way a vendor can create lock-in to their spreadsheets"</i>
More on Microsoft Word and non-interoperable standards compliance « ptsefton
Peter Sefton is at it again. There is a marbux response here, followed by a Bruce Darcus attack. I need to respond to Bruce, and state the truth about the infamous XML ID episode at OASIS ODF Metadata
Apple’s extensions: Good or bad for the open web? | Fyrdility
Fyrdility asks the question; when it comes to the future of the Open Web, is Apple worse than Microsoft? He laments the fact that Apple pushes forward with innovations that have yet to be discussed by the great Web community. Yes, they faithfully submit these extensions and innovations back to the W3C as open standards proposals, but there is no waiting around for discussion or judgement. Apple is on a mission.<br><br>
IMHO, what Apple and the WebKit community do is not that much different from the way GPL based open source communities work, except that Apple works without the GPL guarantee. The WebKit innovations and extensions are similar to GPL forks in the shared source code; done in the open, contributed back to the community, with the community responsible for interoperability going forward. <br><br>
There are good forks and there are not so good forks. But it's not always a technology-engineering discussion that drives interop. sometimes it's marketshare and user uptake that carry the day. And indeed, this is very much the case with Apple and the WebKit community. The edge of the Web belongs to WebKit and the iPhone. The "forks" to the Open Web source code are going to weigh heavy on concerns for interop with the greater Web. <br><br>
One thing Fyrdility fails to recognize is the importance of the ACiD3 test to future interop. Discussion is important, but nothing beats the leveling effect of broadly measuring innovation for interop - and doing so without crippling innovation. <br><br>
"......Apple is heavily involved in the W3C and WHATWG, where they help define specifications. They are also well-known for implementing many unofficial CSS extensions, which are subsequently submitted for standardization. However, Apple is also known for preventing its representatives from participating in panels such as the annual Browser Wars panels at SXSW, which expresses a much less cooperative position...."
The Open Web: Next-Generation Standards Support in WebKit/ Safari
Apple has posted an interesting page describing Safari technologies. Innovations and support for existing standards as well as the ACID3 test are covered. <br><br>
Many people think that the Apple WebKit-Safari-iPhone innovations are pushing Open Web Standards beyond beyond the limits of "Open", and deep into the verboten realm of vendor specific extensions. Others, myself included, believe that the WebKit community has to do this if Open Web technologies are to be anyway competitive with Microsoft's RiA (XAML-Silverlight-WPF). <br><br>
Adobe RiA (AiR-Flex-Flash) is also an alternative to WebKit and Microsoft RiA; kind of half Open Web, half proprietary though. Adobe Flash is of course proprietary. While Adobe AiR implements the WebKit layout engine and visual document model. I suspect that as Adobe RiA loses ground to Microsoft Silverlight, they will open up Flash. But that's not something the Open Web can afford to wait for.<br><br>
In many ways, WebKit is at the cutting edge of Ajax Open Web technologies. The problems of Ajax not scaling well are being solved as shared JavaScript libraries continue to amaze, and the JavaScript engines roar with horsepower. Innovations in WebKit, even the vendor-device specific ones, are being picked up by the JS Libraries, Firefox, and the other Open Web browsers. <br><br>
At the end of the day though, it is the balance between the ACiD3 test on one side and the incredible market surge of WebKit smartphones, countertops, and netbook devices at the edge of the Web that seem to hold things together. <br><br>
The surge at the edge is washing back over the greater Web, as cross-browser frustrated Web designers and developers roll out the iPhone welcome. Let's hope the ACiD3 test holds. So far it's proving to be a far more important consideration for maintaining Open Web interop, without sacrificing innovation, than anything going on at the stalled W3C.<br<br>
"..... Safari continues to lead the way, implementing the latest innovative web standards and enabling
-
"..... Safari continues to lead the way, implementing the latest innovative web standards and enabling next-generation Internet experiences. With support for HTML 5 media tags, CSS animation, and CSS effects, web designers can create rich, interactive web applications using natively supported web standards. A standards-compliant browser, Safari renders current and future web applications as they were meant to be seen...." - garyedwards on 2009-03-19
Europe: Microsoft's behavior has changed, interop docs already complete | Tech Policy & Law News - Betanews
"In light of changes in Microsoft's behaviour, the increased opportunity for third parties to exercise their rights directly before national courts and experience gained since the adoption of the 2004 Decision," this morning's statement reads, "the Commission no longer requires a full time monitoring trustee to assess Microsoft's compliance. In future, the Commission intends to rely on the ad hoc assistance of technical consultants.
"Microsoft has an ongoing obligation to supply complete and accurate interoperability information as specified in the Commission's 2004 Microsoft Decision," the EC goes on. "However, given that the original set of interoperability information has already been documented by Microsoft, increased opportunities through private enforcement provisions in Microsoft's license agreements for third parties to exercise their rights directly before national courts, and experience gained since the adoption of the 2004 Decision, the nature of the technical assistance that the Commission requires is now of a more ad hoc character."
Interoperability, more and less | Bob Sutor's Website and Blog
IBM'sl Bob Sutor defines interop in terms of formats, protocols and interfaces: "To be clear, I’m talking about software interoperability. That technically boils down to the formats used to exchange information, the protocols by which the formatted information is exchanged, and the application programming interfaces (APIs) that software implements to allow the interchange to concretely take place. Collectively I’ll call these interchange formats and methods".
Open Stack: ISO Does The Unthinkable. How ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML will break the Web
In response to a recent question posted to a rather old OpenStack blog, i posted this summary of my views on ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML and the impact it will have on the futrue of the open web.
-
In August of 2007 we dropped ODF as the da Vinci target conversion format, and moved to the W3C's Compound Document Format (CDF) with an ePUB wrapper.
The reason for this move is that we could not establish a reasonable degree of interoperability with OpenOffice ODF unless Sun supported the five generic eXtensions to ODF needed to hit the high fidelity conversion the da Vinci process is capable of.
Since da Vinci is a clone of the MSOffice OOXML compatibility Kit, we use the same internal conversion process where imbr (in-memory-binary-representation) is converted to another format: imbr <> OOXML or, imbr <> RTF.
While it's entirely compliant to eXtend ODF, without Sun's changes to OpenOffice ODF the application-platform-vendor independent interoperability end users expect would be meaningless.
The problem as we see it is this; it is impossible to do a high fidelity conversion between two application specific XML formats.
It is however quite possible to do a conversion between an application specific format and a generic (application-platform-vendor independent) format.
OOXML and ODF: The next step | [odf-discuss] Marbux Responds!
Excellent legal argument by the legendary marbux concerning OOXML and ODF itneroperability. Covers ISO Interop Requirements and the demands of International Trade Agreements. Key to this thread is ODF v 1.2 and what must be done to bring ODF into legal compliance with International demands.
-
The issue we were discussing -- and what I believe the ODEF conference was
very much concerned with -- was whether ODF plus vendor-specific extensions
will be classified as conformant ODF. The market requirement is for
"Exchange Formats" and document-level interoperability.
I could repose my question as whether ODF v. 1.2 will "clearly and
unambiguously specify interoperability requirements essential to achieve the
interoperability," as required by JTC 1 Directives. As you noted in an
earlier post in this thread, you can't do interoperability if you use vendor
extensions.
> I see a standard as providing a shared vocabulary for buyers and sellers
> to express their requirements.
You are in error. This is a matter controlled by law rather than by personal
opinion. Standards are all about the substitutability of goods, weights, and
measures. A standard specifies all characteristics of a product, weight, or
measure in mandatory terms so there is uniformity. Standards are the
antithesis of product differentiation. Their very purpose is to eliminate
product differentiation.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in interope...
-
Interoperability and The Quest For A Universal File Format
Bookmarked pages related to...
Items: 11 | Visits: 238
Created by: Gary Edwards
-
Compatibility matters
The lessons of Massachusett...
Items: 6 | Visits: 10
Created by: Gary Edwards
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo