- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Microsoft Hires Programmer to edit Wikipedia Entry For OOXML
Rick Jelliffe announced on his blog that he has been offered the opportunity to edit the Wikipedia entry for OOXML, namely to correct errors in statements that reflect negatively on OOXML. Even among those who seem to respect his transparency, there is nevertheless concern that corporate-sponsored entries in Wikipedia corrupt the process. His blog post sparked something of a debate over the nature of his project and the differences in the two standards. Some commentators noted that Jelliffe's transparency in disclosing his Microsoft sponsorship means he can be trusted. As others have pointed out, his Microsoft sponsorship means he can be trusted to represent Microsoft's interests, rather than act as an un-interested party in editing the Wikipedia entry. While Jelliffe criticized the OpenDocument format's ability in terms of archiving old MS Office documents, he never explains why Microsoft never took the opportunity to contribute to ODF to resolve such issues. So, while claiming to counteract FUD, he engages in it in his announcement. ODF proponents are quickly responding to Jelliffe's criticism of what he sees as ODF FUD by posting links to information to support their claims. The GrokDoc site, which is geared toward usability issues, has a page dedicated to OOXML objections. Jean Hollis Weber posted in her blog that "The office documents standards war (between Microsoft and just about everyone else) is well into a new phase". She also pointed to Groklaw's page raising concerns about OOXML. Pamela Jones, whose postings on legal issues have been highly accurate, has addressed some of the technical and practical issues involving OOXML in depth. Thus, the document standards war is being fought, not only in the blogs and in the editorial sections of news sites, it is being fought in the reference sites as well. The issue is certainly food for thought. Aside from questions about the impact of this war of words on a reference website, it raises questions about Microsoft's need to pay for editing in a volunteer-dominated website. It also demonstrates Microsoft's commitment to fight OpenDocument, rather than collaborate to make it an even better standard than it already is. |
|
|
Comments (41)
More Astroturfing, Nothing New
As the wise prophet Cyndi Lauper said, "money changes everything." Especially Microsoft money. Even on the quintillion-to-one chance MS has benign intentions, it's still irreparably tainted.
OD FCan Handle Anything MSOffice Throws At It
There is an interesting discussion triggered by Tim Bray's "ongoing · Life Is Complicated" blog piece:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/01/24/Mixup#c116...
Our good friend Mike Champion has some interesting comments defending ISO/IEC approval of MS Ecma 376 based on many arguments. But this one seems to be the bottom line;
"there is not an official standard for one that (in the opinion of the people who actually dug deeply into the question, and I have not) represents all the features supported in the MS Office binary formats and can be efficiently loaded and processed without major redesign of MS Office.
..... So, if you want a clean XML format that represents mainstream office document use cases, use ODF. If you want a usable XML format that handles existing Word documents with full fidelity and optimal performance in MS Office, use OOXML. If you think this fidelity/performance argument is all FUD, try it with your documents in Open Office / ODF and MS Office 2007 / OOXML and tell the world what you learn."
Mike's not alone in this. This seems to be the company line for Microsoft's justification that ISO/IEC should have two conflicting file formats each promising to do the same thing, because only one of those formats can handle the biliions of binary documents conversion to XML with an acceptable fidelity.
This is not true, and we can prove it. And if we're right that you can convert the billions of binaries to ODF without loss of fidelity, then there was no "technology" argument for Microsoft not implementing ODF natively and becoming active in the OASIS ODF TC process to improve application interoperability.
Quote from my Response: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/01/24/Mixup#c116... ---------------------------- ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Office can throw at it. Including the legacy billions of binary documents, years of MSOffice bound business processes, and even tricky low level reaching add-ons represented by assistive technologies....
...we recently made available a demonstration of the powerful but lightweight Da Vinci conversion engine. You can find and download this proof of concept demo at:
http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/home
The ACME 376 Compatibility Kit is the Da Vinci plugin producing ACME 376; an XML encoding of RTF. Da Vinci can also produce MS Binary ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.2. conversion processes. If we wanted to, Da Vinci could be configured to produce MS Binary Chinese UOF conversion processes. It's a very flexible conversion and mapping engine.
ACME 376 was provided tp prove a number of points listed on the download page. Primary among these proofs is that ODF can indeed handle anything and everything thrown at it.
More Quotes from the ongoing "Life Is Complicated" discussion:
* Fortunately for Microsoft, the DaVinci plugin is coming, which will enable Microsoft office applications to comply with ISO 26300. We all understand the financial issues that prompted the push to make OOXML a standard (see Tim's comment above and http://lnxwalt.wordpress.com/2007/01/21/whose-finances-are-o... for more on this) and ensure continued vendor lock-in. However, OOXML is not the answer. * ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Office can throw at it. Including the legacy billions of binary documents, years of MSOffice bound business processes, and even tricky low level reaching add-ons represented by assistive technologies.
Microsoft refused to participate in the OASIS ODF development process, even though they have been an official member of the OASIS group since it's inception. As an "observer" MS has had full access to all discussions, meeting minutes, proposals, documents and white papers. It was their decision not to participate.
Now they claim that ODF is unable to handle the advanced feature set of MSOffice and the full conversion fidelity of those billions of binary documents to XML. This claim stands as the justification for their not participating in the ODF development process. And, more importantly, as the justification for ISO/IEC to adopt a second XML file format that does exactly what ISO 26300 (ODF) is designed to do.
That's extortion. Microsoft alone knows the secrets of the billions of binary documents and how to convert them to XML. They won't share that secret, forcing everyone else into cumbersome, workflow disruptive (lossy) and expensive reverse engineering. And then, after refusing to participate in the ODF process, they use that as an excuse to demand ISO/IEC consider as an international standard an XML encoding of their own proprietary binary file format.
Extortion with a complimentary kick in the teeth.
Download ACME 376, and see for yourselves what the Da Vinci conversion engine can do. More information at http://fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex/ and http://openstack.blogspot.com/
~ge~
Our good friend Mike Champion has some interesting comments defending ISO/IEC approval of MS Ecma 376 based on many arguments. But this one seems to be the bottom line;
"there is not an official standard for one that (in the opinion of the people who actually dug deeply into the question, and I have not) represents all the features supported in the MS Office binary formats and can be efficiently loaded and processed without major redesign of MS Office.
..... So, if you want a clean XML format that represents mainstream office document use cases, use ODF. If you want a usable XML format that handles existing Word documents with full fidelity and optimal performance in MS Office, use OOXML. If you think this fidelity/performance argument is all FUD, try it with your documents in Open Office / ODF and MS Office 2007 / OOXML and tell the world what you learn."
Mike's not alone in this. This seems to be the company line for Microsoft's justification that ISO/IEC should have two conflicting file formats each promising to do the same thing, because only one of those formats can handle the biliions of binary documents conversion to XML with an acceptable fidelity.
This is not true, and we can prove it. And if we're right that you can convert the billions of binaries to ODF without loss of fidelity, then there was no "technology" argument for Microsoft not implementing ODF natively and becoming active in the OASIS ODF TC process to improve application interoperability.
Quote from my Response: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/01/24/Mixup#c116... ---------------------------- ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Office can throw at it. Including the legacy billions of binary documents, years of MSOffice bound business processes, and even tricky low level reaching add-ons represented by assistive technologies....
...we recently made available a demonstration of the powerful but lightweight Da Vinci conversion engine. You can find and download this proof of concept demo at:
http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/home
The ACME 376 Compatibility Kit is the Da Vinci plugin producing ACME 376; an XML encoding of RTF. Da Vinci can also produce MS Binary ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.2. conversion processes. If we wanted to, Da Vinci could be configured to produce MS Binary Chinese UOF conversion processes. It's a very flexible conversion and mapping engine.
ACME 376 was provided tp prove a number of points listed on the download page. Primary among these proofs is that ODF can indeed handle anything and everything thrown at it.
More Quotes from the ongoing "Life Is Complicated" discussion:
* Fortunately for Microsoft, the DaVinci plugin is coming, which will enable Microsoft office applications to comply with ISO 26300. We all understand the financial issues that prompted the push to make OOXML a standard (see Tim's comment above and http://lnxwalt.wordpress.com/2007/01/21/whose-finances-are-o... for more on this) and ensure continued vendor lock-in. However, OOXML is not the answer. * ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Office can throw at it. Including the legacy billions of binary documents, years of MSOffice bound business processes, and even tricky low level reaching add-ons represented by assistive technologies.
Microsoft refused to participate in the OASIS ODF development process, even though they have been an official member of the OASIS group since it's inception. As an "observer" MS has had full access to all discussions, meeting minutes, proposals, documents and white papers. It was their decision not to participate.
Now they claim that ODF is unable to handle the advanced feature set of MSOffice and the full conversion fidelity of those billions of binary documents to XML. This claim stands as the justification for their not participating in the ODF development process. And, more importantly, as the justification for ISO/IEC to adopt a second XML file format that does exactly what ISO 26300 (ODF) is designed to do.
That's extortion. Microsoft alone knows the secrets of the billions of binary documents and how to convert them to XML. They won't share that secret, forcing everyone else into cumbersome, workflow disruptive (lossy) and expensive reverse engineering. And then, after refusing to participate in the ODF process, they use that as an excuse to demand ISO/IEC consider as an international standard an XML encoding of their own proprietary binary file format.
Extortion with a complimentary kick in the teeth.
Download ACME 376, and see for yourselves what the Da Vinci conversion engine can do. More information at http://fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex/ and http://openstack.blogspot.com/
~ge~
Gary, why don't you submit this as an article? Maybe with just a few slight mods...
I'll make sure it gets published.
I'll make sure it gets published.
Seconded!
Microsoft Copies Idea, Admits It, Then Patents It
16 earlier comments in the full thread.
Having filed for a patent (patent pending,) I can say that you most definitely do not have to make a sworn statement to the court to file for a patent.
It works the same way for tax returns. Knowingly making a false statement on a tax return does not qualify as 'perjury', but there are most certainly other laws regarding the filing of knowingly false statements with the Federal Government. I think the confusion arises from the phrase 'Under the penalty of perjury' that is found on said tax forms.
But remember, IANAL, so take my experience for what it's worth to you.
It works the same way for tax returns. Knowingly making a false statement on a tax return does not qualify as 'perjury', but there are most certainly other laws regarding the filing of knowingly false statements with the Federal Government. I think the confusion arises from the phrase 'Under the penalty of perjury' that is found on said tax forms.
But remember, IANAL, so take my experience for what it's worth to you.
> Knowingly making a false statement on a tax return does not qualify as 'perjury', but there are most certainly other laws regarding the filing of knowingly false statements with the Federal Government.
I believe it's usually considered a felony, but you've seen what my opinion on the matter is worth. However, you can ask Scooter Libby about the matter if you wish.
I believe it's usually considered a felony, but you've seen what my opinion on the matter is worth. However, you can ask Scooter Libby about the matter if you wish.
DarrenR114 -
Bingo, you are correct.
I got my name on a couple of patents for a past employer, and can vouch that no oaths were involved.
Bingo, you are correct.
I got my name on a couple of patents for a past employer, and can vouch that no oaths were involved.
There's a story posting soon about MS retracting this one.
Retracting? As in "Mr. Jeliffe made a mistake and it's all his fault" or "wow, were we ever stupid to even offer him the deal in the first place"?
OK, I'll wait for the story. SIGH.
OK, I'll wait for the story. SIGH.
Dino, DarrenR114:
OK, I'm confused (yeah, I know that's nothing new). From the USPTO website, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/#functions :
Oath or Declaration, Signature
The oath or declaration of the applicant (inventor) is required by law for a non-provisional application. The inventor must make an oath or declaration that he/she believes himself/herself to be the original and first inventor of the subject matter of the application, and he/she must make various other statements required by law and various statements required by the USPTO rules. If an application data sheet is filed, the USPTO rules require fewer statements in the oath or declaration. See title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1.63 and 1.76. The oath must be sworn to by the inventor before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths. A declaration may be used in lieu of an oath. Oaths or declarations are required for applications involving designs, plants, and utility inventions and for reissue applications. A declaration does not need to be notarized. When filing a continuation or divisional application a copy of the oath or declaration filed in the earlier application may be used.
So, how is an oath not required?
OK, I'm confused (yeah, I know that's nothing new). From the USPTO website, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/#functions :
Oath or Declaration, Signature
The oath or declaration of the applicant (inventor) is required by law for a non-provisional application. The inventor must make an oath or declaration that he/she believes himself/herself to be the original and first inventor of the subject matter of the application, and he/she must make various other statements required by law and various statements required by the USPTO rules. If an application data sheet is filed, the USPTO rules require fewer statements in the oath or declaration. See title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1.63 and 1.76. The oath must be sworn to by the inventor before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths. A declaration may be used in lieu of an oath. Oaths or declarations are required for applications involving designs, plants, and utility inventions and for reissue applications. A declaration does not need to be notarized. When filing a continuation or divisional application a copy of the oath or declaration filed in the earlier application may be used.
So, how is an oath not required?
> So, how is an oath not required?
An oath yes, but in a court, no. As dino said, very specific.
An oath yes, but in a court, no. As dino said, very specific.
> An oath yes, but in a court, no. As dino said, very specific.
Both Dino and Darren were also stating that no oath was involved in the filing, which is, umm, patently untrue. :)
As to whether it would be considered perjury or not, I'll accept Dino's judgment on the matter. However, you do not have to be in court to be guilty of perjury. As I noted early, false statements to Congress while under oath can also considered perjury. I believe (but see my above note) that the definition of perjury has been expanded in other ways as well. In general, it's best to assume that any false statement to a government official may be considered perjury, even if that's not the case.
Both Dino and Darren were also stating that no oath was involved in the filing, which is, umm, patently untrue. :)
As to whether it would be considered perjury or not, I'll accept Dino's judgment on the matter. However, you do not have to be in court to be guilty of perjury. As I noted early, false statements to Congress while under oath can also considered perjury. I believe (but see my above note) that the definition of perjury has been expanded in other ways as well. In general, it's best to assume that any false statement to a government official may be considered perjury, even if that's not the case.
> There's a story posting soon about MS retracting this one.
Shortly after that there should be a story about MS patenting something more sinister :-)
Shortly after that there should be a story about MS patenting something more sinister :-)
>t's best to assume that any false statement to a government official may be considered perjury, even if that's not the case.
No, it's not. If you are placed under oath in an official proceeding, you can perjure yourself.
No, it's not. If you are placed under oath in an official proceeding, you can perjure yourself.
>No, it's not. If you are placed under oath in an official proceeding, you can perjure >yourself.
Tell that to Martha Stewart.
Of course, she was being hounded by the FTC, which is hardly an objective, balanced system. Can you say capricious?
Tell that to Martha Stewart.
Of course, she was being hounded by the FTC, which is hardly an objective, balanced system. Can you say capricious?
jdixon,
I specifically mentioned 'sworn statement to the court' - not just any oath or sworn statement. As I understand it, and as Dino has stated (since he has been an actual attorney of the bar, his would be the stronger opinion,) perjury is specific to statements to the court. An application for a patent is not a statement to the court, as the PTO is not part of the Judiciary.
As I understand it, Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstructing, or interfering with, justice, not 'perjury'.
Raising false allegations with police officers and prosecutors do not constitute perjury, but if you make false statements to the court to support such, then you are guilty of perjury, as well as filing false statements with the police.
There's a nice rundown of 'perjury' at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Lying under oath to Congress does not necessarily constitute 'perjury' either - 'obstructing the work of Congress' at the very least, but not necessarily 'perjury'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
I'd prefer to quote from a more authoritative source such as "Black's Law Dictionary", but I can't find a decent online link to point you to.
I specifically mentioned 'sworn statement to the court' - not just any oath or sworn statement. As I understand it, and as Dino has stated (since he has been an actual attorney of the bar, his would be the stronger opinion,) perjury is specific to statements to the court. An application for a patent is not a statement to the court, as the PTO is not part of the Judiciary.
As I understand it, Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstructing, or interfering with, justice, not 'perjury'.
Raising false allegations with police officers and prosecutors do not constitute perjury, but if you make false statements to the court to support such, then you are guilty of perjury, as well as filing false statements with the police.
There's a nice rundown of 'perjury' at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Lying under oath to Congress does not necessarily constitute 'perjury' either - 'obstructing the work of Congress' at the very least, but not necessarily 'perjury'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
I'd prefer to quote from a more authoritative source such as "Black's Law Dictionary", but I can't find a decent online link to point you to.
Whatever the legal fine points of defining perjury are, the bottom line is you can get away with doing all sorts of dreadful things to real people. But if you commit an act that even in the most tangential way ticks off a cop or a judge, you're toast.
Going way back to Dino's first comment, Thomas Edison was one of the biggest patent poachers of all time. It's nothing new. But anything ms does is, by definition, more loathesome. :)
Going way back to Dino's first comment, Thomas Edison was one of the biggest patent poachers of all time. It's nothing new. But anything ms does is, by definition, more loathesome. :)
> perjury is specific to statements to the court.
No. I've already mentioned Congress and the Wikipedia entry also says that it filing a false tax return may be considered perjury. Of course, as with my opinion, Wikipedia's legal opinion is worth what you pay for it.
> Lying under oath to Congress does not necessarily constitute 'perjury' either
It does not necessarily, but it can, as seems to be true with most laws anymore.
As I said, I accept Dino's opinion that it is not perjury in this case, as Congress probably did not pass that capability onto the Patent Office as their official agent, though they could have done so had they wished.
Dino and I will simply have to disagree as to my statement concerning lying to a government official. I consider my position prudent, especially consider the rapid rise in powers granted to the executive over the past several years. He obviously disagrees. I think we would agree that the best course of action when dealing with the government is to refuse to answer questions without a lawyer present. Even with a lawyer present, I would be inclined to plead the fifth and make a judge tell me I had to answer before doing so.
> As I understand it, Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstructing, or interfering with, justice, not 'perjury'.
As I understand it, Martha was found guilty of lying to the FBI during an investigation. However, I seriously doubt she cares if it was perjury she was charged with or something else. To her, and anyone else in her position, it's a difference that makes no difference.
No. I've already mentioned Congress and the Wikipedia entry also says that it filing a false tax return may be considered perjury. Of course, as with my opinion, Wikipedia's legal opinion is worth what you pay for it.
> Lying under oath to Congress does not necessarily constitute 'perjury' either
It does not necessarily, but it can, as seems to be true with most laws anymore.
As I said, I accept Dino's opinion that it is not perjury in this case, as Congress probably did not pass that capability onto the Patent Office as their official agent, though they could have done so had they wished.
Dino and I will simply have to disagree as to my statement concerning lying to a government official. I consider my position prudent, especially consider the rapid rise in powers granted to the executive over the past several years. He obviously disagrees. I think we would agree that the best course of action when dealing with the government is to refuse to answer questions without a lawyer present. Even with a lawyer present, I would be inclined to plead the fifth and make a judge tell me I had to answer before doing so.
> As I understand it, Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstructing, or interfering with, justice, not 'perjury'.
As I understand it, Martha was found guilty of lying to the FBI during an investigation. However, I seriously doubt she cares if it was perjury she was charged with or something else. To her, and anyone else in her position, it's a difference that makes no difference.
>Dino and I will simply have to disagree as to my statement concerning lying to a government official.
There is no agreeing or disagreeing. You are free to be wrong. There are many kinds of falsehoods, frauds, etc. Perjury is a special category with its own set of legal requirements. However, in fairness to you, there is not a single perjury. Common law perjury is specific to malicious falsehoods in a judicial proceeding.
Statutory perjury can, in some jurisdictions and some circumstances, include false statements in some categories of documents and in other proceedings.
There is no agreeing or disagreeing. You are free to be wrong. There are many kinds of falsehoods, frauds, etc. Perjury is a special category with its own set of legal requirements. However, in fairness to you, there is not a single perjury. Common law perjury is specific to malicious falsehoods in a judicial proceeding.
Statutory perjury can, in some jurisdictions and some circumstances, include false statements in some categories of documents and in other proceedings.
>> As I understand it, Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstructing, or interfering with, justice, not 'perjury'.
>As I understand it, Martha was found guilty of lying to the FBI during an investigation.
... Exactly, because she was afraid she was going to be charged with insider trading, despite the fact she wasn't an insider.
Martha did a stupid thing. Multi-[bm]illionaires shouldn't grouse about mere $80,000 losses. They also shouldn't be subject to the ridiculous rule set the FTC has managed to cobble together. She wasn't an insider. She was just a high-profile, sexy (to the FTC) target.
I hope she's found better lawyers since.
>As I understand it, Martha was found guilty of lying to the FBI during an investigation.
... Exactly, because she was afraid she was going to be charged with insider trading, despite the fact she wasn't an insider.
Martha did a stupid thing. Multi-[bm]illionaires shouldn't grouse about mere $80,000 losses. They also shouldn't be subject to the ridiculous rule set the FTC has managed to cobble together. She wasn't an insider. She was just a high-profile, sexy (to the FTC) target.
I hope she's found better lawyers since.
tqk -
Got to hand it to Martha, though...She did a great job of turning lemons into lemonade.
Reports of her rather nasty nature had placed her on my personal "least-loved celebrities" list, but...
The whole going to jail thing worked really well for her.
The federal government was ridiculous in its pursuit of her and I wonder how much the jury really thought she was guilty (did they even understand the charge?) and how much they just wanted to stick it to a nasty rich celebrity. She had plenty of reason to grouse about her treatment.
But she didn't. She went to jail and played nice with the inmates.
She may still be mean and nasty (I have no idea -- she may now be nice and cuddly), but she's got some spunk to her, and an ability to deal with some humbling circumstances.
If there were a K-Mart near me, I'd buy her stuff.
Got to hand it to Martha, though...She did a great job of turning lemons into lemonade.
Reports of her rather nasty nature had placed her on my personal "least-loved celebrities" list, but...
The whole going to jail thing worked really well for her.
The federal government was ridiculous in its pursuit of her and I wonder how much the jury really thought she was guilty (did they even understand the charge?) and how much they just wanted to stick it to a nasty rich celebrity. She had plenty of reason to grouse about her treatment.
But she didn't. She went to jail and played nice with the inmates.
She may still be mean and nasty (I have no idea -- she may now be nice and cuddly), but she's got some spunk to her, and an ability to deal with some humbling circumstances.
If there were a K-Mart near me, I'd buy her stuff.
> You are free to be wrong.
It won't be the first or last time Dino, so I don't see much point in worrying about it. :)
It won't be the first or last time Dino, so I don't see much point in worrying about it. :)
>Reports of her rather nasty nature had placed her on my personal "least-loved celebrities" list, but...
Oh, certainly. I can't stand the woman. Her nose is so far up in the air, I'm surprised she can breath. I certainly respect her accomplishments, and marvel at how well she took all the "Insider trading" abuse, and how well she managed leverage it all to exit prison glowing to her fans (and investors).
The FTC was the bad guy in that case. She was just foolish and greedy, neither of which are against the law, except to the FTC it seems.
Oh, certainly. I can't stand the woman. Her nose is so far up in the air, I'm surprised she can breath. I certainly respect her accomplishments, and marvel at how well she took all the "Insider trading" abuse, and how well she managed leverage it all to exit prison glowing to her fans (and investors).
The FTC was the bad guy in that case. She was just foolish and greedy, neither of which are against the law, except to the FTC it seems.
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: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
Shill season
,----[ Quote ] | It's often difficult to figure out the motivation behind a particular | study - until one finds out who has commissioned and paid for it. | The so-called tech consulting companies would love it if the consumer | believes that they have conducted an "independent" study. The worrying | thing is that not many people blow their cover. `----
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/8109/1090/
NY Times rattles IT industry with analyst ban
,----[ Quote ] | Speaking of which, let's see what triggered the Enderle/Microsoft | ban. | | In a story about Microsoft's XBox, Enderle described the direct | relationship between the game console, download services and the TV. `----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/12/analyst_nytimes/
,----[ Quote ] | In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing | when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing | disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its | antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans | for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from | deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. `----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
ToorCon ("Firefox security is a mess") sponsored by Microsoft
,----[ Quote ] | Lately, I read the headline: "Open Source browser Firefox is so | critically flawed that it is impossible to fix, according to two | hackers." Further on, in the ZDNet article I read: "The hackers claim | they know of about 30 unpatched Firefox flaws. They don't plan to | disclose them, instead holding onto the bugs." | | Since that sounds suspicious, I decided to start searching for | connections with MS. Easy enough, here it is... `----
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/70873/index.html
,----[ Quote ] | Could there be more bad news? Of course! Even Paul Thurrott isn't | impressed with the Zune, calling its pricing strategy the "makings of | a disaster." Misery! Not only has the Zune suffered a horrific wreck of | a product introduction, but Annie Wilkes is at the foot of the bed saying | she doesn't approve of how things are going. | | If your number one fan is sending you hate mail, you have a problem. | So what's with all the Zune related web sites carefully repeating the | same talking points? It's called astroturfing. | | Instead of inspiring actual interest in a grassroots fashion, Microsoft | has resorted to spreading fake grass, crafting each site to suggestt | he appearance of something other than the advertisement it is. | | This is similar to the scam Microsoft pulled with its own imitation of | Apple's Switchers ad campaign. Titled "Confessions of a Mac to PC | Convert," the ad portrayed a professionally dressed woman complaining | about her Mac, but ended up being a canned picture pulled from stock | photography and voiced by a professional writer. | | Similarly, Greenpeace staffers have assigned to post astroturf comments | on websites saying "I'm a Mac user and gosh darn it I think that | Greenpeace is alright with all their concern about the ecology!" More | on that scam later! | | One would expect a certain level of interest and excitement out of | Microsoft's own users, but that isn't really happening. Nearly every | Zune site on the web is carefully stepping around the piles of problems | to spend a lot of time on Microsoft supplied bullet points, including | the "celebration of music," the slightly larger or at least | stretched display, and how wireless DRM sharing is such a | brilliant idea. `----
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/9F60D74A-0E27-4F5F-B88...
MSN Is Spamming The Blogosphere
,----[ Quote ] | Mr. Youth LLC is a marketing firm and lists MSN as a customer. Their | website is here: http://www.mryouth.com/ Their phone number is | (212) 779-8700. | | I've talked to a couple of other bloggers who said they are receiving | similar comments on their blogs. This pisses me off because MSN/Mr. | Youth should 1) be more upfront about their true identity, and 2) | provide a real e-mail address so that I can request they take my | blog off their marketing campaign. `----
http://www.scott-o-rama.com/2006/12/06/msn-is-spamming-the-b...
Microsoft Traps and Hunts for Bloggers in India !!
,----[ Quote ] | Microsoft has announced the "Microsoft BlogStars" contest, to Hunts | for Developer Bloggers in India. After feeling the power and increase of | the Bloggers community in India, Microsoft tries to trap and hunt Bloggers | in India to buildup the blogging community, for writing blog posts | supporting towards Microsoft Technologies. `----
http://i5bala.blogspot.com/2006/10/microsoft-traps-and-hunts...
,----[ Quote ] | Long before it employed bloggers to do the job for it, Microsoft hired | sympathetic members of the public to make its case in online forums, | posing as disinterested citizens. Things got much more professional as | the antitrust trial unfurled. After hiring DCI in the late 1990s, | Microsoft created two new trade groups, the Association for Competitive | Technology (ACT), and the Americans for Technology Leadership (ALT), | and marshaled campaigns such as "Freedom to Innovate" - encouraging | Windows users the chance to make spontaneous gestures of support for | Chairman Bill. | | These weren't always too successful. A campaign in 2001 to petition 17 | state's Attorney Generals - who had pooled resources to bring their | own antitrust action against Microsoft - resulted in supportive letters | being written by dead people. | | And the astroturf taint continues today. | | Most recently, a spoof video portraying Al Gore as a Penguin was reported | to have originated from a computer registered to the DCI Group, although | the lobby group said it did not fund or approve the video. `----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/14/google_lobby/
,----[ Quote ] | "Some years back, Microsoft practiced a lot of dirty tricks using | online mavens to go into forums and create Web sites extolling the virtues | of Windows over OS/2. They were dubbed the Microsoft Munchkins, and it | was obvious who they were and what they were up to. But their numbers | and energy (and they way they joined forces with nonaligned dummies who | liked to pile on) proved too much for IBM marketers, and Windows wont | he operating-system war through fifth-column tactics" | | Mr Dvorak wonders if Microsoft is today using reverse-dirty-tricks | to promote the Xbox 360: pay people to create Web sites that slam the | gaming computer in order to provoke a barrage of defenders. `----
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/gizmos/2005/11/2_grassroot...
,----[ Quote ] | Instead of inspiring actual interest in a grassroots fashion, Microsoft | has resorted to spreading fake grass, crafting each site to suggest | the appearance of something other than the advertisement it is. | | This is similar to the scam Microsoft pulled with its own imitation of | Apple's Switchers ad campaign. Titled "Confessions of a Mac to PC | Convert," the ad portrayed a professionally dressed woman complaining | about her Mac, but ended up being a canned picture pulled from stock | photography and voiced by a professional writer. | | Similarly, Greenpeace staffers have assigned to post astroturf comments | on websites saying "I'm a Mac user and gosh darn it I think that | Greenpeace is alright with all their concern about the ecology!" More | on that scam later! | | One would expect a certain level of interest and excitement out of | Microsoft's own users, but that isn't really happening. Nearly every | Zune site on the web is carefully stepping around the piles of problems | to spend a lot of time on Microsoft supplied bullet points, including | the "celebration of music," the slightly larger or at least | stretched display, and how wireless DRM sharing is such a | brilliant idea. `----
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/9F60D74A-0E27-4F5F-B88...