[Golden Eagle]

Editorial on FOX News weighs in on the controversial decision by MA to switch all their systems to an obscure and untested data format.

[Golden Eagle]

I agree with the author.

[LiteKeeper]

The only harm that will be done in adopting these standards is edging Microsoft out of it's efforts to create a monopoly. It is not obscure - in fact, IBM is a major player in this standards move...and many other major corporations are in it also. In fact, Microsoft is the only major player that is not signing up for it. Too bad - so sad, my kids used to say.

[NJ_gent]

Let's see, a document format that can be read by anything, written by anything, is fully supported by free software packages, and can be supported by any conceivable commercial offering. Yes, I can already see the skyrocketing costs. /braindead

[flashbunny]

Let's play "follow the money":

From the article:

----Jim Prendergast is executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership.---

---

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Technology_Leadership

Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a "grassroots" organisations for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector. It also campaigns on general tech issues such as spam.

It has been frequently described as a Microsoft front group. [1] (http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/000421.shtml) [2] (http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010823.html) [3] (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/blog/computers/tanks.html)

ATL's domain name, techleadership.org, is registered to the Association for Competitive Technology. The site is hosted by Thomas E. Stock and Thomas J. Synhorst's LLC, TSE Enterprises. Synhorst is a founding member of the DCI Group, a Washington DC-based strategic consulting and lobbying firm which has counted Microsoft as a prime client for a number of years.

Joshua Micah Marshall reports in the July 17, 2000 American Prospect: "[W]hile Microsoft did confirm that Synhorst's DCI had been retained as a consultant, it insisted that another DCI employee, Tim Hyde, and not Synhorst, was handling the company's account. In any event, the web of connections among DCI, ATL, and Microsoft is striking. While working for Microsoft, DCI has also provided consulting services to ATL. And Josh Mathis, the man [ACT president Jonathan] Zuck installed as ATL's executive director, is also an employee of DCI, who still works out of the same Washington, D.C., office as Synhorst and Hyde."
[edit]
Pro-Microsoft letter campaign discovered

In August 2001 the Los Angeles Times reported that a ATL was behind a "carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign to create the impression of a surging grass-roots movement" behind Microsoft. "The campaign, orchestrated by a group partly funded by Microsoft, goes to great lengths so that the letters appear to be spontaneous expressions from ordinary citizens. Letters sent in the last month are printed on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces--details that distinguish those efforts from common lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day. Experts said there's little precedent for such an effort supported by a company defending itself against government accusations of illegal behavior."

According to the Times, the campaign was discovered when Utah's Attorney General at the time Mark Shurtleff received letters "purportedly written by at least two dead people ... imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly."

Eighteen state's attorneys general were joining with the Justice Department in its anti-trust suit against Microsoft. Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller reported receiving more than 50 letters in support of Microsoft during the summer of 2001. "No two letters are identical, but the giveaway lies in the phrasing," the Times wrote. "Four Iowa letters included this sentence: 'Strong competition and innovation have been the twin hallmarks of the technology industry.' Three others use exactly these words: "If the future is going to be as successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain free from excess regulation."

Dewey Square Group and DCI Group sibling firm DCI/New Media are credited with assisting Microsoft with its "grass-roots" campaign, according to the Times.

----

http://slate.msn.com/id/1004941/

Who's Behind the Pro-Microsoft Poll?
Rob Walker
Posted Monday, March 27, 2000, at 7:36 AM PT

Settlement maneuvering notwithstanding, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson still looks set to make formal what everyone already assumes--his conclusion that Microsoft has violated antitrust laws. Once he has done this, perhaps this week, he will request a remedy proposal from the Department of Justice and the 19 state attorneys general involved in the case. The involvement of a bunch of attorneys general in an election year is going to mean that public opinion could actually count for something in hatching that proposal.

So what does the public think? One answer surfaced late last week in the form of a poll. As reported by Bloomberg, 67 percent of those polled said the antitrust suit is a waste of taxpayer dollars, 55 percent said Microsoft has benefited consumers, 80 percent said the case ought to be settled out of court, and only 16 percent said the company should be broken up. USA Today's headline over this story was "Poll: MS Case a Waste of Money."

Continue Article

This poll was conducted on behalf of Americans for Technology Leadership. I had never heard of Americans for Technology Leadership, and a search on Yahoo led me to an October 29, 1999, press release announcing the organization's debut. The release said Americans for Technology Leadership was "a new grassroots coalition." It also cited an earlier poll "presented by" the coalition, which found that "63 percent of Americans familiar with the DOJ suit against Microsoft believe the government should not be pursuing the case and 77 percent feel that it is an example of wasteful government spending."

There was also a link to the group's home page. On the home page was a link to a list of the group's founders. And if you haven't already guessed, there on the list of founders of the "grassroots" organization, is the Microsoft Corporation.

So, uh, America has spoken.

----

I guess we know where the butter for his bread comes from.

And that took me less than 5 minutes to find out.

[ordinaryguy]

Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition

Hardly. Having a checklist of required features is not an attack on market-based competition.

The proposed policy is also puzzling and arbitrary in its approach to Adobe’s PDF format (search). The policy acknowledges that PDF falls outside the “open” format mandate, but grants PDF an exception so that agencies can continue to use it.

PDF is an open format. Anyone who cares to implement the format within their application is able to do so, because Adobe has provided detailed specifications describing the format.

[magellan]

Obscure and untested?

Any new format is obscure and untested.

TCP/IP was obscure and untested at one time.

HTML was obscure and untested at one time.

Actually, let's just call it obscure. I have tested several OpenDocument formats and they work just fine.

OpenDocument is simply a set of open XML based formats for word processors, spreadsheets, presentation software, and other productivity software.

As it is open and XML based, it is trivial for any productivity software to support it. I mean every word processor out there supports HTML.

Microsoft Office supports multiple document formats. I don't know if Microsoft submitted its own XML based file formats to the OASIS standards organization for consideration, but all Microsoft has to do is support OpenDoc.

OpenDoc is something that has been needed for some time. Many people simply don't understand why an HTML web page can be viewed in any web browser, but after 25 years of PCs, office documents have a myriad of different formats.

[highpockets]

A Kennedy has to have a financial connection to OpenDocument file formats.

[LibFreeOrDie]

One of the founding members of the author's organization, Americans for Technology Leadership, is...Microsoft!

http://www.techleadership.org/about/

Not exactly an independent view.

[quantim]

but they’re missing a big story in Massachusetts

Off topic, but did anyone hear Bennett slam fat drunken Ted on the murder of Mary Jo on FNC tonight?

[Lancey Howard]

Some have suggested that the policy would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (search).

Now THERE's a reach if I ever saw one - - phew! That grasping-at-straws statement brought a smirk to my face so I decided to peruse the article for the other side of the story - - you know, statements from people who support Massachusetts' decision? Oops. There IS no "other side of the story " presented.

[Gunslingr3]

But for now, the policy simply promises enormous and unnecessary migration costs to Massachusetts’ taxpayers.

Microsoft spreading FUD through Foxnews.

Jim Prendergast is executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership.

Americans for Technology Leadership was founded by Jonathan Zuck in 1999 as a "grassroots" organisations for concerned consumers who want less regulation in the technology sector. It also campaigns on general tech issues such as spam. It has been frequently described as a Microsoft front group.

In August 2001 the Los Angeles Times reported that a ATL was behind a "carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign to create the impression of a surging grass-roots movement" behind Microsoft. "The campaign, orchestrated by a group partly funded by Microsoft, goes to great lengths so that the letters appear to be spontaneous expressions from ordinary citizens. Letters sent in the last month are printed on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces--details that distinguish those efforts from common lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day. Experts said there's little precedent for such an effort supported by a company defending itself against government accusations of illegal behavior."

According to the Times, the campaign was discovered when Utah's Attorney General at the time Mark Shurtleff received letters "purportedly written by at least two dead people ... imploring him to go easy on Microsoft Corp. for its conduct as a monopoly."

Eighteen state's attorneys general were joining with the Justice Department in its anti-trust suit against Microsoft. Iowa's Attorney General Tom Miller reported receiving more than 50 letters in support of Microsoft during the summer of 2001. "No two letters are identical, but the giveaway lies in the phrasing," the Times wrote. "Four Iowa letters included this sentence: 'Strong competition and innovation have been the twin hallmarks of the technology industry.' Three others use exactly these words: "If the future is going to be as successful as the recent past, the technology sector must remain free from excess regulation."

Microsoft can participate in future MA technology contracts, they just can't lock the state's data into their proprietary formats and try to blackmail taxpayers into their senseless product replacement cycle by threatening withdrawl of support.

[MarkL]

Anybody else remember the US government directive that all networking was going to have to conform to the ISO protocols? I think that DECnet Phase IV was as close to a commercial implementation that anyone ever got.

This goes back more than a decade, but I remember getting a call from a client at AT&T, asking me if I knew of any X implemtations that would run on the OSI protocols...

Mark

[Paleo Conservative]

Editorial on FOX News weighs in on the controversial decision by MA to switch all their systems to an obscure and untested data format.

That would be very useful for the legislature.

[bahblahbah]

"obscure and untested data format"

Who the hell cares, let Massachusetts do whatever they want. Everything is in XML so its not like they can't later hire a couple of college interns or get some software engineering students to write some xslt to convert between the formats.

[N3WBI3]

Yea what major US technology companies would back this format?

Dear Mr. Quinn:
I am writing on behalf of Sun Microsystems to support and applaud the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the publication of the Public Review Draft of the ETRM v3.5. Both the process and the outcome provide thought leadership for the public sector across America and around the world.
We feel that requiring the use of an office document format, OpenDocument 1.0, which is standardized by a public process, completely free of legal encumbrances, already implemented in multiple products, not controlled by any one vendor, and on its way to being an ISO standard is enlightened and will pay long-term benefits to the citizens of Massachusetts. These benefits include preserving office document accessibility to the widest audience and for the longest term; an affirmation of the value of open standards in preserving choice and interoperability in software applications. This is also evidence of the soundness of your Enterprise Open Standards Policy (http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/openstandards.pdf) which outlines your rationale for adopting open standards.
Some may contend that the decision is unfairly dictating a software preference. This is entirely wrong; the guidelines make it clear that any applications need only support an open, unencumbered document format. Your guidelines do not limit any vendor's ability to compete for state business because the required open formats are available equally to all,and participation in their development is equally open to all.
In closing, we'd like to thank the Commonwealth for including us in this process. Please don't hesitate to call on Sun again in future.
Sincerely,
Scott McNealy
Chairman and CEO
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

The OpenDocument standardization process also included many document users, especially those with the need to handle complex documents or to be able to retrieve documents for long periods of time after their development. Document-using organizations who initiated or were involved in the standardization process included (alphabetically):

* Boeing (complex large documents)
* CSW Informatics
* Drake Certivo
* Intel (complex large documents; they are developing sample documents as a test suite)
* National Archive of Australia (retrieve documents long after development)
* New York State Office of the Attorney General (complex large documents retrieved long after development)
* Society of Biblical Literature (large multilingual documents, long-term retrieval)
* Sony
* Stellent

[afnamvet]

"Tin Turkey"? "Brass Buzzard"? Sounds like NSA operatives. LOL

[Hildy]

What's the upside of changing systems?

[Ramius]

I don't think this is the big deal that some would like to think it is.

Most people don't care about who makes their document editor. What people want is a standard. They want to be able write something up and send it to somebody else and have them read it and edit it, probably even send it back for same. That's all.

If MA sets a standard that doesn't work outside of their little boundary... even they will stop using it in order to get work done. If it does work, then nobody will care.

[Doohickey]

Socialist governments really go for the free stuff. Cuba...China...Massachusetts...

[RushingWater]

I bought a used PC and my Windows won't validate. It doesn't make me like Microsoft.