Truth in labeling
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| garyedwards Mar 08, 2006 6:51 PM EDT |
Or is it "libeling"? Personally i refuse to dignify this deception by repeating the scam. Since the specification was submitted to ECMA for consideration, I always refer to MSXML as MSECMAXML. The MS plot to confuse and deceive goes back to the days when the EU was arguing with Microsoft, IBM and Sun about an Open Standards XML file format requirement. Microsoft insisted that MSXML was "open enough". The EU said no way. When the EU tried to convince Microsoft to adopt the OASIS Open Office XML file format, Microsoft countered with the complaint that they couldn't adopt a file format named after one of their competitors application suite - OpenOffice.org. So the EU came to the OASIS Open Office XML TC and asked that the name be changed. They even went so far as to point out that during the Valoris Groups three year study the term used in the reports to describe a fictional Open Standards XML file format was that of "OpenDocument". The OASIS Open Office XML TC acted on the EU request and decided to change the official name from Open Office XML to OpenDocument. Microsoft soon after countered with their own name change of MSXML to Office Open XML. Confused? Of course. Microsoft first complains about the problems of adapting to a file format named "Open Office XML",and as soon as their complaint affects a change, takes the name "Office Open XML" for their own. If this stuff didn't really happen no one in their right mind would believe it. In the aftermath of the deliciously named "anti trust" trial, where Microsoft was found to be guilty of some of the most reprehensible and illegal business practices known, one would have thought that this company would have some concern about how to regain the public's trust. No way! Microsoft remains an unrepentant unapologetic recidivist reprobate. You can't even say that about Enron. As a USA Corporation Microsoft's deceptive use of the word "Open" might be something of interest to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)- once they start "advertising" a product with MSECMAXML. What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers like Microsoft? Here are few FAQs from the FTC.gov web site: Under the Federal Trade Commission Act: * advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; * advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and * advertisements cannot be unfair. What makes an advertisement deceptive? According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that: * is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and * is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. What makes an advertisement unfair? According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if: * it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and * it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers. How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive? A typical inquiry follows these steps: * The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures -to determine what it conveys to consumers. * The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product. Examples of material claims are representations about a product's performance, features, safety, price, or effectiveness. * The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs. What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads? * Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim. thanks for the timely article Glyn, ~ge~ |
| moopst Mar 08, 2006 8:15 PM EDT |
Microsoft remains an unrepentant unapologetic recidivist reprobate. You can't even say that about Enron.
============ Microsoft has the luxury of having their users where they want them: completely dependent on them for all things on the desktop. Whereas Enron was fooling investors who could do the equities market a favor by cutting and running the typical Microserf is bound to the Microsoft fiefdom in perpetuity. I do know a lot of Microsoft users and "programmers" who are starting to see the problems that Microsoft dependency creates but they have an unbelievable amount of FUD in their own minds that is difficult to overcome. I believe the Open Source Initiative (OSI) should take Microsoft to court over their misuse of the term "Open". Their web page http://www.opensource.org/ says: Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community, specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software certification mark and program. They have the terms 'Open Source' and 'OSI Certified' trademarked. I think they should trademark 'Open Standards' and 'Open Specifications' soon before Microsoft muddies them up!!! |
| glynmoody Mar 09, 2006 1:10 AM EDT |
Gary, thanks for the comments and for sharing with us your unrivalled knowledge of the background to the OpenDocument saga. It is precisely the kind of information that you give here (and elsewhere) that I had in mind when I spoke of "a detailed repudiation of any false claims" Microsoft makes in this area. |
| grouch Mar 18, 2006 11:31 AM EDT |
garyedwards:
Wow! I _thought_ I knew the history of OpenDocument. The information you provide goes farther back and lays the foundation for current events. Thanks for the enlightenment. (This is just another example of how true openness can leverage the knowledge and abilities of many.) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!