Advanced

Red Hat Summit panel: Who 'won' OOXML battle?

Posted by Scott_Ruecker on · 4 comments
The Industry Standard; By Chris Kanaracus
Mail this story
Print this story

The Open Document Format (ODF) has benefited from the two-year battle over the ratification of Microsoft's rival Open Office XML (OOXML) standard, which is native to its Office 2007 suite, Microsoft's national technology officer said Thursday during a panel discussion at the Red Hat Summit in Boston.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Groups: Red Hat, Microsoft; Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (4)

Despite the nice words from a MS flak regarding ODF, I suggest caution. At best the target date for implementation is more than a year in the future. In a shorter interval, I have seen MS reverse its assertions. Remember how the Soviets had an ever evolving history with an air brush to remove conflicting facts from the record. [Now, in essence, copied by some major Western powers where lies are asserted without even bothering to alter the historic record. Think MS when they asserted there was a Chinese wall between Applications and OS groups. Later this was revised to: why shouldn't they have worked together for the greater good?] So be skeptical until it is real, even then it might be a temporary ploy.

tagged: serious
Immiscible..good word Hersch, and the perfect one word description for Microsoft and anything FOSS.

You suggest caution and I believe what I can see. In regards to Microsoft that equates to 'wait and see'. Which is the only way to deal with them.

Did you see this? http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNewsMolt/idUKN203828...

Wow, Microsoft violating patents? That's never happened before...

NOT!!
Maybe Microsoft does violate patents. But remember FOSS might violate the same patents. That's why I wouldn't get too cocky over Microsodt being awarded against. In this case it isn't Microsoft that's the problem, it's Software patents.
Scott,

I am fairly certain this is not an isolated incident. Moreover, other fouler examples, not pertaining to patents exist. For example how MS created Internet Explorer where not only did they not own the software temporarily given the name, even the name was not theirs. Eventually they paid a paltry sum of about $ 1 * 10+6 after putting the owner and creator of a separate entity out of business.

I have searched for the story, which I thought was in lwn.net without success. It might have been an item on /., but I have read there are ways to bury stories. It was disgusting to read how they pounded this man down. It was the trustees that finally settled for the low figure, years too late.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post