- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Is a Vote for OOXML (Office Open XML) as an ISO illegitimate?
|
|
|
Comments (31)
11 earlier comments in the full thread.
Thank you jd, you saw where I was pointing.
Azerthoth -
If that's where you were pointing, then you weren't pointing anywhere.
Jurisdiction is all about a court's right to hear a dispute. It tends to be resolved quickly because the same things that interfere with a court's right to hear a dispute also interfere with a court's ability to enforce it's orders. In short, courts don't like to waste time where they have no jurisdiction.
So -- here's the challenge for you and jd :
How many times HAVE you actually heard courts claim jurisdiction they didn't have, hmmmmm?
If that's where you were pointing, then you weren't pointing anywhere.
Jurisdiction is all about a court's right to hear a dispute. It tends to be resolved quickly because the same things that interfere with a court's right to hear a dispute also interfere with a court's ability to enforce it's orders. In short, courts don't like to waste time where they have no jurisdiction.
So -- here's the challenge for you and jd :
How many times HAVE you actually heard courts claim jurisdiction they didn't have, hmmmmm?
> How many times HAVE you actually heard courts claim jurisdiction they didn't have, hmmmmm?
At least half a dozen in the past few years, off the top of my head. I'd have to research the details, and that's not going to happen with everything else going on right now.
At least half a dozen in the past few years, off the top of my head. I'd have to research the details, and that's not going to happen with everything else going on right now.
jdixon --
I'd be interested to hear about them.
There are occasions when jurisdiction is in question, and the internet has helped to bring those upon us.
Usually the problem is not a court taking jurisdiction per se. In the US, at least, complaints are brought to the court. The plaintiff will allege that the court does have jurisdiction, and, most of the time, the basis for jurisdiction is pretty plain. In our system, as in the British system, the job of refuting jurisdiction lies with the defendant. The court is able, on its own accord, to dismiss a case on jurisdictional grounds, but that's not the way it ordinarily works. The plaintiff alleges jurisdiction, and, in the absence of refuting evidence by the defendant, jurisdiction is taken. In that case, the court actually acquires jurisdiction because the defendant has acquiesced to it.
I'd be interested to hear about them.
There are occasions when jurisdiction is in question, and the internet has helped to bring those upon us.
Usually the problem is not a court taking jurisdiction per se. In the US, at least, complaints are brought to the court. The plaintiff will allege that the court does have jurisdiction, and, most of the time, the basis for jurisdiction is pretty plain. In our system, as in the British system, the job of refuting jurisdiction lies with the defendant. The court is able, on its own accord, to dismiss a case on jurisdictional grounds, but that's not the way it ordinarily works. The plaintiff alleges jurisdiction, and, in the absence of refuting evidence by the defendant, jurisdiction is taken. In that case, the court actually acquires jurisdiction because the defendant has acquiesced to it.
> In that case, the court actually acquires jurisdiction because the defendant has acquiesced to it.
Or, not being in the courts jurisdiction, never attended the case (or perhaps was never even notified).
I believe at least two of the cases I'm thinking of were brought at the International Court of Justice (which, from memory) the US doesn't recognize, so they're not your normal court cases.
Or, not being in the courts jurisdiction, never attended the case (or perhaps was never even notified).
I believe at least two of the cases I'm thinking of were brought at the International Court of Justice (which, from memory) the US doesn't recognize, so they're not your normal court cases.
[quote]Or, not being in the courts jurisdiction, never attended the case (or perhaps was never even notified).[/qoute]
The Spamhaus case comes to mind.
The Spamhaus case comes to mind.
I also learned something from Roy's article.
Good points, intellectual honesty (I think) and nice use of supporting references without overdoing it like some I read.
I'd sense that ISO will not be so easy to bring down over its mishandling of the OOXML voting and that M$ will instead get out of its negative entanglements here one way or another.
>I'd sense that ISO will not be so easy to bring down
I'm less sure about that, but courts aren't the most likely mechanism.
A standards body relies in large measure on its moral authority -- assorted individuals and organizations recognize that the body has a charter to issue standards and that something about the process makes those standards worth paying attention to.
The body might be damaged, or the standard might simply wither and die.
Ever hear of CMIP? It was supposed to be the "real" network management protocol..SNMP was developed as a stopgap. Except that, SNMP got implemented and CMIP was too complex and resource intense.
I don't know if anyone -- even Microsoft -- will implement OOXML.
What I think will be fun, though, in the case of contracts requiring an OSI standard, is compliance offers testing Microsoft software for compliance with the standards it put forth.
Should be good for a giggle.
I'm less sure about that, but courts aren't the most likely mechanism.
A standards body relies in large measure on its moral authority -- assorted individuals and organizations recognize that the body has a charter to issue standards and that something about the process makes those standards worth paying attention to.
The body might be damaged, or the standard might simply wither and die.
Ever hear of CMIP? It was supposed to be the "real" network management protocol..SNMP was developed as a stopgap. Except that, SNMP got implemented and CMIP was too complex and resource intense.
I don't know if anyone -- even Microsoft -- will implement OOXML.
What I think will be fun, though, in the case of contracts requiring an OSI standard, is compliance offers testing Microsoft software for compliance with the standards it put forth.
Should be good for a giggle.
Quoting:I don't know if anyone -- even Microsoft -- will implement OOXML.
They already have. They have made great care during the BRM that whatever crap is currently emitted by Office 2007 can still be called OOXML. It uses the parts marked as "Deprecated" and it doesn't contain everything in the spec, but it's OOXML allright. Technically. If you squint a bit.
>They have made great care during the BRM that whatever cr@p is currently emitted by Office 2007 can still be called OOXML
Maybe there's some value there, but, my understanding is that OOXML allows for elements that are, essentially, "Here's junk I threw in that you don't need to know about so screw you, pal."
Maybe there's some value there, but, my understanding is that OOXML allows for elements that are, essentially, "Here's junk I threw in that you don't need to know about so screw you, pal."
That's right.
As I argued in my response to Patrick Durusau in point two (the one you didn't like) the goal is simply to make sure MS-Office 2007 can bid for procurements in governments that require an ISO standard. That's why they could not remove all that junk at the BRM. Office 2007 generates that junk so it had to be in the standard.
As I argued in my response to Patrick Durusau in point two (the one you didn't like) the goal is simply to make sure MS-Office 2007 can bid for procurements in governments that require an ISO standard. That's why they could not remove all that junk at the BRM. Office 2007 generates that junk so it had to be in the standard.
> The Spamhaus case comes to mind.
I believe that's one of the ones I was remembering of, yes.
I believe that's one of the ones I was remembering of, yes.
jdixon -
Yes.
The internet creates a lot of jurisdictional problems. The big problem is this:
Somebody in the UK can break the law in the US. Not just the law OF the US, but the law IN the US. So.... The spammer can indeed come under US jurisdiction. It's less clear to me how that threads up to ICANN, except that ICANN also has contractual relationships with registrars in the US and, in fact, has its own dispute-handling system (and a nasty, business-biased one a that) in the United States. AND -- ultimately, it is ICANN that grants and pulls the names.
It will be interesting to follow.
In the case of ISO standards, I don't see a similar chain to the ISO. I do see the potential for suits against organizations who require ISO standards, but I'm not sure how far those can go, because organizations have the right to do that, even if the standards are monkey turds.
Surely some lawyers will look for cracks to drive stakes into.
Yes.
The internet creates a lot of jurisdictional problems. The big problem is this:
Somebody in the UK can break the law in the US. Not just the law OF the US, but the law IN the US. So.... The spammer can indeed come under US jurisdiction. It's less clear to me how that threads up to ICANN, except that ICANN also has contractual relationships with registrars in the US and, in fact, has its own dispute-handling system (and a nasty, business-biased one a that) in the United States. AND -- ultimately, it is ICANN that grants and pulls the names.
It will be interesting to follow.
In the case of ISO standards, I don't see a similar chain to the ISO. I do see the potential for suits against organizations who require ISO standards, but I'm not sure how far those can go, because organizations have the right to do that, even if the standards are monkey turds.
Surely some lawyers will look for cracks to drive stakes into.
> The internet creates a lot of jurisdictional problems.
Yes, but our current system makes it more complicated than it needs to be. The servers should be under the jurisdiction of the government where they're located. The individual users should be under the authority of the government where they're located. A UK gambling business should not be considered to have broken US law because a US citizen accessed it.
> In the case of ISO standards, I don't see a similar chain to the ISO.
Neither do I, but I'm confident someone will try to find a way. And if enough try, someone will.
Yes, but our current system makes it more complicated than it needs to be. The servers should be under the jurisdiction of the government where they're located. The individual users should be under the authority of the government where they're located. A UK gambling business should not be considered to have broken US law because a US citizen accessed it.
> In the case of ISO standards, I don't see a similar chain to the ISO.
Neither do I, but I'm confident someone will try to find a way. And if enough try, someone will.
jd -
It gets tricky, though.
For example, if somebody just puts up a site that somebody scans, no problem.
If they actively solicit business in the US -- why should they not come under US jurisdiction, especially as a session is, essentially, a big old international handshake -- with one end over here.
Great fun while the world works it out.
It gets tricky, though.
For example, if somebody just puts up a site that somebody scans, no problem.
If they actively solicit business in the US -- why should they not come under US jurisdiction, especially as a session is, essentially, a big old international handshake -- with one end over here.
Great fun while the world works it out.
> If they actively solicit business in the US -- why should they not come under US jurisdiction.
But advertising an illegal activity is already a crime. So how will they solicit business? Ads on US sites and with US advertisers would be within US jurisdiction, and could be prosecuted. Ads on other sites outside the US are still out of US jurisdiction. The US person engaging in the illegal activity can always be prosecuted. Of course, the WTO has already ruled that the US laws banning gambling violate previously existing trade agreements, which makes things even more interesting.
> Great fun while the world works it out.
If you're not one of the people being arrested and thrown in jail, I agree. If you are, fun might not be quite the right word. :(
This isn't just an international problem. I've seen at least a couple of equivalent cases at the state level, where sites (usually pornography) which are considered legal in the area they're located are ruled by a court in another state to violate that state's law and tried to impose penalties, even though neither the servers nor the owners/operators are within their jurisdiction.
In a completely unrelated but equally irritating matter concerning jurisdiction, WV just added a line for their "use tax", which is a blatantly unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce, to their state income tax form. Since no one keeps records of what I buy from out of state, it's impossible to comply with, of course. I can only hope someone with enough money to fight it decides to take it to court.
But advertising an illegal activity is already a crime. So how will they solicit business? Ads on US sites and with US advertisers would be within US jurisdiction, and could be prosecuted. Ads on other sites outside the US are still out of US jurisdiction. The US person engaging in the illegal activity can always be prosecuted. Of course, the WTO has already ruled that the US laws banning gambling violate previously existing trade agreements, which makes things even more interesting.
> Great fun while the world works it out.
If you're not one of the people being arrested and thrown in jail, I agree. If you are, fun might not be quite the right word. :(
This isn't just an international problem. I've seen at least a couple of equivalent cases at the state level, where sites (usually pornography) which are considered legal in the area they're located are ruled by a court in another state to violate that state's law and tried to impose penalties, even though neither the servers nor the owners/operators are within their jurisdiction.
In a completely unrelated but equally irritating matter concerning jurisdiction, WV just added a line for their "use tax", which is a blatantly unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce, to their state income tax form. Since no one keeps records of what I buy from out of state, it's impossible to comply with, of course. I can only hope someone with enough money to fight it decides to take it to court.
>This isn't just an international problem. I've seen at least a couple of equivalent cases at the state level,
State level is usually less of a problem, but you might not like the wary it works.
Most, if not all, states have something called "long arm" statutes that allow them to claim jurisdiction over people in other states. These statutes derive from a Supreme Court decision years ago (can't remember what it's called) which said that states can claim jurisdiction over people who maintain a certain number of contacts with the states.
I can't remember how it all works, but it gets applied to internet sites too.
State level is usually less of a problem, but you might not like the wary it works.
Most, if not all, states have something called "long arm" statutes that allow them to claim jurisdiction over people in other states. These statutes derive from a Supreme Court decision years ago (can't remember what it's called) which said that states can claim jurisdiction over people who maintain a certain number of contacts with the states.
I can't remember how it all works, but it gets applied to internet sites too.
If truth in labeling applied to government, it would be called "long pickpocket fingers."
> ...but you might not like the wary it works.
There's nothing new about that when it comes to government. I seldom like the way it works. :)
> ...which said that states can claim jurisdiction over people who maintain a certain number of contacts with the states.
I know that purchases are considered taxable by the state if the business has a business operation (usually considered even one store) in the state. I assume that's from the same decision.
There's nothing new about that when it comes to government. I seldom like the way it works. :)
> ...which said that states can claim jurisdiction over people who maintain a certain number of contacts with the states.
I know that purchases are considered taxable by the state if the business has a business operation (usually considered even one store) in the state. I assume that's from the same decision.
Quoting:There's nothing new about that when it comes to government. I seldom like the way it works. :)Government works?! When did this happen?
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