Microsoft Discusses Open Standards (versus Open Source Software)

Matt Asay discusses today's Wall Street Journal article on Microsoft's battles with State governments over ODF.  [Here's the link to the article source from Market Watch lest the WSJ archive go into pay mode.] 

I find this all sort of funny.  Five years ago as governments explored open source software preference legislation, Microsoft's rhetoric machine went into overdrive to lobby people to prefer technology based on open standards regardless of implementation methodology and licensing.  And this IS the right solution for governments.  But based on current rhetoric I thought it would be funny to see what Microsoft had to say for itself.  Unfortunately the Wayback Machine wasn't as helpful this time, and Google search results are jammed with the "Men in Black" story about Microsoft's hired bullies lobbyists. 

I was, however, able to find a document from that period on Microsoft.com.  [Microsoft.com is a sufficiently large site to have a life of its own.  While pages change, downloads often remain.]  A search on Microsoft.com for "standards open source" returned a huge number of links, but a download called "Key Messages" on the first page looked promising.   

So here are some "Key Messages" from Microsoft's standards team circa 2003 (doing battle with the Australian parliament no doubt) [Emphasis added]:

• An open standard is a publicly available specification which details certain technical functionality that may be implemented in different products and services.  It is adopted in an open, consensus-based process and must satisfy other criteria for transparency, ease of access, and broad implementation as described below.
• Open standards exist to facilitate interoperability and data exchange across various products and services in a marketplace of multiple, competing implementations, while ensuring that certain minimum requirements are met.
• Other types of standards (e.g., “proprietary standards”) and market-based mechanisms exist and are currently used to facilitate interoperability.  However, open standards ensure the highest level of interoperability across the widest range of competing products and services.

You can read the rest but you get the idea.  Sooooo ... ODF versus Microsoft Open XML.  I guess we should judge each based on the number of implementations of each.   

Comments

[Roy Schestowitz]

Have a look at this one, which is older.

"Microsoft: For example, we should take the lead in establishing a common approach to UI and to interoperability (of which OLE is only a part). Our efforts to date are focussed too much on our own apps, and only incidentally on the rest of the industry. We want to own these standards, so we should not participate in standards groups. Rather, we should call 'to me' to the industry and set a standard that works now and is for everyone's benefit. We are large enough that this can work."

http://www.os2site.com/sw/info/comes/px09509.zip

[W^L+]

In your opinion, is the anti-openness viewpoint a top-management view, or is it pervasive throughout the company?

The company will have some management transitions in the next few years, so a top-only view would suggest that waiting is in order, rather than a confrontational approach.

[Wesley Parish]

"I find it kind of funny
"I find it kind of sad
"That the dreams in which I'm dying
Are the best I've ever had."

And:

"(3) it is vendor and product neutral (i.e., open standards are not tied to the products or services of any particular vendor, and implementation of the standard is not limited to particular hardware or software products), and"

"So, if we require full fidelity with the legacy documents, we will need to “utilize and duplicate the output of those applications.” Additionally, ECMA 376 fully admits that this is outside the scope of this specification in that the possible behaviours of legacy documents “cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office open XML Standard.” It goes to show that the large 6000+ page document will not contain all the information we need for the legacy documents, and this means we should look elsewhere for this interoperable information."

Very little needs to be added at this point. "Hoist on their own petard", and what a thunderous and smelly one it was too.

[stephe]

@ W^L+: I think it's a lack of understanding in the senior ranks that grew through a time when they didn't need to be open that they can't get over at this time. And culture comes from the top. So while there a lots of people that are willing to explore being more open, they're prevented from so doing. Waiting won't help. Education will (hopefully) help.

@ Roy: This is an older meme when they thought that being the de facto technology (based on a vendor centric spec) was a good lock. They needed a little more history. And they're getting that now.