Microsoft accuses IBM of OOXML smear campaign

Microsoft executives have accused IBM of single-handedly leading an effort to block the software giant from having its Office Open XML standard approved by the International Standards Organisation (ISO).

After initially being rejected in September 2007, Microsoft has a second chance to have its next generation document format become an international standard in February at a Ballot Resolution Meeting in Geneva.

While criticism of Microsoft's efforts to promote the standard have come from a variety of quarters, Microsoft senior director of XML technology, Jean Paoli, accused IBM of masterminding the attack.

"Let's be very clear," he said. "It has been fostered by a single company -- IBM. If it was not for IBM it would have been business as usual for this standard."

IBM was the member of European standards group ECMA (out of over 21) to vote against the approval of Open XML as an ECMA standard. Microsoft claims its competitor has since opted for more covert tactics to influence the ISO vote.

Nicos Tsilas, senior director interoperability and IP policy at Microsoft, said that IBM and the likes of the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to mandate the rival ODF (Open Document Format) standard to the exclusion of any other format.

"They have made this a religious and highly political debate," he said. "They are doing this because it is advancing their business model. Over 50 percent of IBM's revenues come from consulting services."

A growing proportion of those revenues are being derived from the support of open source software, he said.

Debate over the legitimacy of the standard has been framed within a battle for two opposing philosophies on how IT goods and services are best provided to users.

On the one side is the proprietary software model championed by Microsoft, in which the customer buys a licence in the hope that they won't require services to implement the solution. The other, the open source software model, sees software developers give their intellectual property for free and aim to profit instead from consulting services.

"IBM have asked governments to have an open source exclusive purchasing policy," Tsilas said. "Our competitors have targeted this one product -- mandating one document format over others to harm Microsoft's profit stream."

"It's a new way to compete," he said. "They are using government intervention as a way to compete. It's competing through regulation, because you couldn't compete technically."

Paoli said that Microsoft has never been an aggressor in the standards world and did not mobilise against Sun and IBM when they proposed ODF.

"We did not go and block it," he said. "When it was voted as an ANSI (American national standard) in the US, we voted yes. There is absolutely no parallel between what Microsoft did in the standardisation process for ODF and what IBM is doing now," he said.

Brett Winterford travelled to Redmond as a guest of Microsoft.

Advertisement

Talkback 36 comments

    Feel so sorry for microsoft Anonymous -- 30/01/08

    "They have made this a religious and highly political debate," said microsoft.

    Sounds like IBM has learned a thing or two from microsoft's war against linux!

    Religious = Stallman ad FSF Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094515)

    M$ is a corporation, focused on generating cash for its shareholders by meeting customer needs.

    The Free Software Foundation, Stallman, Moglen, Updegrove that is true religion, bigotry, and fanaticism (have you seen some of these anti-oxml sites?)

    IBM and Sun - corporate interests taking advantage of the above s/w jihadists. Paying and buying off some (like Updegrove), creating others (liek Groklaw and ODF Alliance), and taking advantage fo the zealots like FSF.

    IBM has been around forever. They've written the book on all of this. Interesting side note" they invented FUD (look up FUF in wikipeda).

    Do me a favor DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094678)

    Name ONE, ONE product Microsoft has ever produced that met the needs of the customers.

    Yeah, didn't think so. That line is a great farce; Microsoft produces products that meet THEIR needs (to remain a monopoly and milk people for money), and they don't really care about the customers, period. If they did, their OS wouldn't be a huge lumbering piece of trash.

    Um... DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094515)

    ""They have made this a religious and highly political debate," said microsoft."

    Um, no. Actually, this became a political debate when Microsoft decided the best way to handle this was via bribery and subterfuge. Unfortunately for them, they got caught. This is the classic "accuse your opponents of doing what you've been doing" strategy, perfected by years of idiots thinking it somehow actually works. They have to deflect the bad press towards someone else.

    OOXML standards Anonymous -- 30/01/08

    Like most things that microsoft make for example Microsoft front page for Editing HTML the program sprawls all the code all over the place causing a mess. This is intentionally done so no other programs can be used to edit the code. Microsoft the " control freaks" as they are releasing a new standard to be approved will this just be another fine example of sloppy workmanship?

    Clearly committed to quality Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094522)

    The irony in this process is that IBM, the FSF, Sun, ODF Alliance, tried to sabotage the standard by putting it under unprecedented scrutiny and submitting a crazy amount of technical issues (over 3000), but because Ecma, and the other standards developers have listened, they actually helped make the spec better!! There is no question about it - because of them, ISO OXML will be a much better standard! BTW, have you seen the Burton Group Study entitled "What's Up Doc, ODF, OXML?" It's an objective, not paid by an party study. OXML wins hands down.

    There is nothing objective about that study DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094679)

    For God's sake, actually READ the thing! Obviously you missed that the Burton report praises OOXML and attacks ODF... for the SAME THINGS. It's so loaded with waffling and backpedalling to make OOXML look better that any sane person can see it was either paid for or the writers were complete morons.

    As for "sabotaging" the standard, no one has done any such thing. The scrutiny of this standard was caused by Microsoft's attempt to rewrite every single standard used in the tech market in general in one single spec. Wanna explain to me why they couldn't re-use existing standards, like the Gregorian calendar, the ISO date standard and the ISO country identifier standard, not to mention all the W3C standards jumped over by this thing. It contains TWO standards for vector graphics alone!

    That's the reason the spec is horribly bloated; Microsoft is attempting to do what most intelligent people call "reinventing the wheel", mainly because it'd be cheaper for them to do so, because to do otherwise would require them to overhaul the innards of Microsoft Office.

    OOXML is, in fact, one of the worst standards ever designed. Please, tell me what a <w> is. Or how about an <sw>? Do you know how much space goes in a paragraph with spaceLikeWord98 on it?

    Good thing! Anonymous -- 30/01/08

    "Let's be very clear," he said. "It has been fostered by a single company -- IBM. If it was not for IBM it would have been business as usual for this standard."

    Good on IBM. We all know what "business as usual" is for MS and it would be wrong not to stop it :).

    Ironic thing Anonymous -- 30/01/08 (in reply to #320094525)

    The EU looks at fines against MSoft on the grounds that its office products store documents in a proprietary format, but then so does IBM’s lotus applications and pretty much all other vendors. (Waiting for the day the EU mentions that .exe files are anti-competitive in their proprietary format – lets move back to batch files chaps).
    Slightly iron that MSoft try to release a standard to an independent body and they get torn apart, would not be the first ‘standard’ which had two supporting formats.

    Ha ha ha DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094554)

    I hate to break it to you, but ODF is not proprietary. However, OOXML is, until someone gets around to actually defining the standard, normally, not in Microsoft's "just short of the full mark" style of documenting.

    Really - do you trust IBM??? Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094525)

    So you prefer to be locked into one inferior standard (that has no backward compatibility, does not support any modern features like accessibility) and you prefer to rely on IBM which locks in data and customers with their main frame business (that part of IBM wouldn't know an open standard if it farted in their face) and which is the epitomy of the ultimate monopolist (remember their past). M$ is no angel, but the best way to keep these goliaths in check is to ask for choice. I want multiple standards that serve my different needs (we already have this is in the file format space; mobility space; etc); and I want these vendors competing for my business. Interesting that IBM is trying to get governments to exclusively mandate ODF; and that M$ did not block ODF. In terms of transparency and openness and consumer benefits: M$ 1 - IBM 0

    LOL DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094680)

    There's that backwards compatibility argument again! OOXML has no backwards compatibility support at all. It is Microsoft Office that has the backwards compatibility support; once the files are converted to OOXML, they are no longer "backwards compatible". FORMATS cannot be backwards-compatible; that is an application detail.

    As for inferior, I don't know about you, but I much prefer a standard that actually makes use of existing standards, not a standard that attempts to pretend that Windows is the center of all computing and everything it's done wrong should be cemented permanently in computer logic for all time. I horribly disagree with a standard that requires dates to be intentionally wrong because the creator of the standard would rather not have to fix their broken program. Hey, instead of fixing our program, we'll just require everyone else to break theirs!

    Ever heard the joke about how many Microsoft techs it would take to screw in a lightbulb?

    Not Smearing When True Anonymous -- 30/01/08

    It is not a smear campain when the facts are true.

    Microsft have realsed a crap standard that should not be accepted just like VISTA!

    I have been a loyal MS guy since win 95 but whats that i hear, Its Steve with a bright shiny new Mac for me:D

    The CRAP is ODF!! Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094561)

    You should do an objective comparison in terms of functionality, features, reliability, backward compatibility, etc. No doubt about it ODF=CRAP. OXML = pretty good.

    But don't take my word for it. see http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx

    Yeah... DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094681)

    Linking to one of the most biased reports ever released, that's a sure way to prove your point.

    I'm somewhat interested, is there an exact reason why that report you love to cite hits ODF for "not having a standard for spreadsheet functions", when OOXML doesn't have one either? Unless you consider the Help files from Excel to be an effective explanation.

    It's not about Standards Anonymous -- 30/01/08

    If any of you think this ongoing battle for document format supremecy is about standards then think again. Both companies strategies are about trying to destabilise the others business. IBM dont want OpenXML to become a standard as it would lead to growing revenue for MS and a decline in revenues for IBM. IBM are looking to get ODF adopted as the only format standard so they can stick it to MS. Ask the next IBM consultant you meet about Project Liberate" and you will start to get the picture of what this is all about.

    Yeah it is. Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094594)

    If MS-OOXML was a standard that could actually be used by IBM, then it would be to their advantage to support it, as it would give IBM access to Office file formats. As it stands, though, this 'standard' cannot be implemented. Only MS CAN implement it.
    As for 'sticking it' to MS, there's no reason MS can't support ODF. The only reason that a new standard format - and I mean the ONLY reason - might be considered to be 'sticking it to' MS is that MS only competes via lock-in, not via quality.

    Get your facts rights! There are many implementations of OXML including by IBM slimnicky -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094607)

    IBM currently implements OXML in 4 of their products: ) IBM is now supporting OXML in at least four of its products – Lotus Quickr, Websphere Portal, DB2 Content Manager v8.4, and DB2 9 pureXML. Other implementations include Google (search/preview), Apple (Mac OSX Leopard, iWork, iPhone), Adobe (InDesign), Novell (Suse Open Office), Mindjet, QuikOffice, etc,

    And guess what. MSoft is implementing ODF. At the end we win! We are not locked into any one of them and we have choice. Good stuff.

    I am perplexed though at how heated this debate is and why the battle lines have been drawn between these commercial giants (and some religious zealots as well (like FSF)). Seems to me key objective is to unseat the leader (MSoft) and try to catch up. Whe else would IBM, FSF and crew advocate for one standard at the exclusion of others. They don't do this in any other part of their business..... Can you say inability to compete because they have an inferior standard?

    I don't like being told what to do. Whether it's my boss, my wife, IBM or the FSF. As far as I'm concerned the more standards the better. The choice empowers me (the end-user).

    Mixing the facts Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094594)

    Seems people continue to mix terms, facts, etc. IBM doesn't own ODF. ODF is a specification for documents format, not the same with, say, Sun's StartOffice or IBM's Symphony that are applications that handle the format. ODF belongs to OASIS, an independent standard organization with 600+ members and later approved by the ISO. Whatever organization, enterprise, etc that want to lobby in favor of ODF can do that because is an international standard, free of charge, patents or royalties. OK, Microsoft voted yes with the ANSI vote, but it doesn't participate in the OASIS's ODF standarization process. And for backward compatibility, tell Microsoft that publish, free of charge or patent licenses, its binary format specifications so whatever application can open legacy documents. Sorry for my English

    ODF = IBM +SUN Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094617)

    Anyone can createa TC (working group) in OASIS and standardize anything. That's what these companies did. Just because OASIS is a open standards org it doesn't mean ODF is legitimate or any good. In fact it is neither.

    Technical correctness Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094594)

    ODF was done in open. Everyone was invited to take part in the work of OASIS and comment the standard proposal *before* it was voted upon.

    "We did not go and block it," at the time - yes, they simply ignored ODF. And now they are surprised that the world governments are ignoring them.

    IIF the OOXML proposal was technically correct a lot less parties would be against it. I for one, am personally infuriated at the OOXML documents that ignore the well-established XML rules for storing dates - and instead use their own invented format compatible with (surprise) MS Windows. And easily removable document password "protection", still using OLE streams while *saving* some files in *new* format... Legacy compatibility, yeah, right.

    See http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/ to know what I mean.

    Technical Correctness is INCORRECT Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094667)

    ODF is not really open! Has anyone on this message board ever participated and\or created a working group in a standards org??? Anyone can do it and the games that are being playd are insane. ODF is not open. It isa spec completely controlled and owned by Sun and IBM. And I am infuriated that IBM, Sun and company want to force this inferior standard dow my throat - no accessibility features, no backward compatibility with the thousands of docs in my org, no rich functionality, macros, etc. Don't force me to buy your stuff or use your standards - win me over. Yes, IBM and Sun, compete for my business!! I know that is big ask for the quintissential convicted monopolist (IBM) and a company w/o a business model (Sun), and the religious OSS zealots! But competition and choice is what it's all about. And to their credit Microsoft is a least providng choice and enabling me to make up my own mind... more than we can say for IBM.

    BTW, you want a good analysis and comparison of the standards check out the Burton Group report: http://www.burtongroup.com/Guest/Ccs/WhatsUpDoc.aspx

    Technical Correctness is CORRECT Anonymous -- 01/02/08 (in reply to #320094690)

    Oh, poor blind guy. hahaha, now IBM is the convicted monopolist and Microsoft is the "choice". Everyone knows that MS is paying big money in Europe for its monopolist practices and squeezes competition implementing dirty tricks like integrating IE with the OS (Netscape), and again the "backward compatibility" subject, if MS give me its binary specifications, then I can for sure build my own apps for read old or legacy documents! Burton Group report? don't make me laugh.

    Journalism? Anonymous -- 31/01/08

    Just wondering, isn't it standard journalistic practice to at least attempt to get a response from the other party? All I see here are quotes from MS executives. Did you even ask to talk to anyone at IBM? But then again, I guess IBM didn't offer you a trip to Armonk.

    Really!!??? Respectfully Disagree! Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094615)

    You know there has been so much coverage and oversaturation of ODF IBM, FSF, Sun, the ODF Alliance and this religious battle, that' its actually refreshing to get the other side of the story. Kudos to the reporters, ZDNet and the Microsoft execs or presenting the other side. At the end of the day this is a good old fashion commerical battle that has become political and has one side (IBM et al) trying to involve governments. We should all ask ourselves why in a world of multiple standards and increasing choice does one vendor want to force one standard (ODF) down our throat? I am not a big fan of Microsoft, but the IBM/Sun standards is inferior an just means more vendor lock-in and crappier software. Just gve me choice - ODF and OXML, and HTML, and RTF, and PDF, etc.

    ... DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094677)

    "You know there has been so much coverage and oversaturation of ODF IBM, FSF, Sun, the ODF Alliance and this religious battle, that' its actually refreshing to get the other side of the story. Kudos to the reporters, ZDNet and the Microsoft execs or presenting the other side. At the end of the day this is a good old fashion commerical battle that has become political and has one side (IBM et al) trying to involve governments"

    I'd be involving governments too if a company with a lot of cash in storage was attempting to push a shoddy and unimplementable standard through via bribery, coercion and threats. Microsoft is coming out with this now because we're a few weeks away from OOXML's final chance at making it through, and they need to do something to counter the claims that they've been playing dirty from day one. And you say we're only getting "one side"? Um, seriously, why do you think only Microsoft has a different story from everyone else? Maybe because... oh, I dunno... they're LYING?

    But of course, we'll just ignore the claims made by IBM, and by Sun, and by Novell, and by the FSF, and by FSFE, and by the European Union, and by the European Commission for Interoperable Systems, and by every other big tech company in the market. Obviously everyone else is wrong and Microsoft is right. Obviously the fact that that would require ignoring the evidence of your eyes and ears is a moot point as well.

    "We should all ask ourselves why in a world of multiple standards and increasing choice does one vendor want to force one standard (ODF) down our throat?"

    Because the point of one standard is to even the playing field. Multiple standards only benefit companies that already own the market in question. Now, after reading that, why do you suppose Microsoft is pushing for multiple formats in the market they own?

    ODF is open. Microsoft can implement it. Microsoft could have a say in development of the standard (and they did have a chair on the WG that designed ODF, they just chose not to say anything). You claim that OOXML is open because ECMA "owns" it? I suggest you read TC45's mandate; OOXML is required by ECMA to be whatever the latest version of Microsoft Office produces. In short, OOXML is controlled by Microsoft and only Microsoft, and the whole working group BS at ECMA is simply an attempt by Microsoft to hide that they have complete control of the standard.

    "Just gve me choice - ODF and OXML, and HTML, and RTF, and PDF, etc."

    HTML and PDF cover different requirements. RTF is not a standard, period. Never has been, never will be. Calling RTF a standard is like calling DOC a standard.

    OOXML Anonymous -- 31/01/08

    my objection has nothing to do with IBM. they never discussed it with me. we have a standard. follow it. extend it.

    The pot calling the kettle a pot! IBM did a Microsoft on them? really? its just business!

    Yes, it is just business, BUT it's not good business when... Anonymous -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094619)

    when they are forcing a standard down yor throat. Why should any company decide what standard I need torun my business or interact with my government. I saw hell no to that!! Are they worried I don;t know my business, or are they worried they (Sun, IBM, etc) are increasingly becoming irrelevant and the only way they can compete now is to force me to buy their products (yes, buy! you do pay for all these "free" "open source software"). I smell a rat and the stench is coming from upstate NY. Let these ruthless companies compete for our business. Let them earn it. We are all already better off because we have many choices for document formats, including OXML.

    Do me a favor... DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094691)

    Ask the companies that have to pay money to convert from abandoned format to abandoned format how much better off it is to have multiple document formats. You are aware that we've lost at least 20% of the documents produced in the last 20 years, due to constantly changing and incompatible file formats, right?

    And despite your obvious belief, Windows is not the only OS in the world. And the very idea of letting Microsoft write all standards all but guarantees that Windows will always be ahead. Microsoft can never resist using anything they can get ahold of as leverage to help their own business.

    If you honestly feel ... Chris Ward -- 31/01/08

    If you honestly feel that you couldn't implement the proposed standard on a Sony Playstation; an Apple Mac; a One-Laptop-Per-Child; a cellphone; a mainframe; then you should say so.

    I don't think anyone is saying that OOXML doesn't work. They're saying that it is a single-vendor standard. But it is only implementable by Microsoft, and only for Windows platforms; and only for traditional Personal Computers.

    No-one's stopping you from adding value on top of OpenOffice.org , 'KOffice', or Lotus Symphony, and attempting to charge whatever price you like to. Sun StarOffice and IBM Lotus Notes do exactly that. StarOffice and Lotus Notes aren' t open-source.

    Many implementers for OXML slimnicky -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094628)

    Actually there are tons of current implememters of OXML, including Apple, Google and IBM (4 implementations in 4 different products)! So it is truly open!

    Zero implementers for OOXML Rufus Polson -- 31/01/08 (in reply to #320094676)

    No, there are *not* tons of current implementers. There may be a viewer or two, but ironically not even Office 2007 actually adheres to the published OOXML specifications. So there are zero implementers--not even Microsoft implements it.

    Which in turn means that even if someone else *did* implement the published OOXML specification, including the things where it says stuff like "Do this the way Word 97 did it (which incidentally we won't say how that is)", they *still* wouldn't be compatible with MS Office. OOXML is a sick joke.

    Yeah... DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094696)

    Rufus is right. Apple's implementation is incomplete. So's Gnumeric. So's Novell's.

    IBM's support will be restricted to Windows, because they can use Microsoft's libraries to handle OOXML. Google has no support for OOXML; are you referring to their ability to index the documents? Anyone can do that; it's an inherent benefit of XML in general.

    And finally, Microsoft Office 2007 does not produce compliant OOXML either. They've extended it already. And Excel's macro files are not even XML; they're BINARY.

    Microsoft's OXML policy positions Nicos Tsilas -- 01/02/08

    Hi - I'm the Microsoft employee quoted in this ZDNet article. If you want to find out more about Microsoft's OXML policy positions please go to http://www.microsoft.com/office/openxmlpolicy or http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/

    Regards, Nicos Tsilas

    Business Anonymous -- 03/02/08

    MS doesnt actually need ISO accreditation to push the standard, nor do they need everyone's approval. If they believe it is the best, let the market sort it out.
    Personally I think there are more to Microsoft's intentions, as always. Perhaps if they worked with people rather than pushing their own agenda's this would not have happened. The sooner they realise that people are no longer sheep, and don't trust them, the better

    I can tell you that DarkPhoenix -- 04/02/08 (in reply to #320094868)

    "Personally I think there are more to Microsoft's intentions, as always."

    Yes, there are. In this case, it's that members of the World Trade Organization (including the largest governments on this planet) are required to use standardized formats if they exist. ODF is now a standardized format, and Microsoft does not have lone control of it. They refuse to implement it because they can't change it on a whim like they do with the DOC format. But because ODF is a standardized format, governments are required to use it.

    Therefore, Microsoft either has to bite the bullet and support ODF, or they have to create a standardized format that they can control. That is the reason OOXML exists; so Microsoft can claim that Office is standards-compliant and can be used by governments. That's a lot of money Microsoft doesn't want to lose, but they don't want to give up the tool that keeps Office a monopoly; Microsoft's ability to make changes to the formats with every version of Office...

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Blogs

  • Darren Greenwood Telecom NZ savings damage prospects
    If Telecom NZ wants to have any of the NZ$1.5 billion the government intends to spend on its new broadband network, it had better think long and hard before offshoring 1500 jobs.
  • Array iiNet: The whys and what nows
    Last week the Federal Court ruled that internet service providers are not responsible for copyright violation by their customers. This is an important decision not just for iiNet, which spent around $4 million defending the case, but for all ISPs in Australia and, indeed, globally.
  • Array Govt, hurry up with releasing data
    A programmer scraped data from the My School website to make some really cool heat maps showing regions of smart schools — no thanks to the government, which didn't supply the data in any useful kind of format.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured