Here you find a collection of allegations used against the opponents of the ISO standardization of OOXML and competing formats.
Bergstein(AP): Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit, Jan 23, 2007
[Microsoft's media spokesperson] Catherine Brooker said she believed the [Wikipedia OOXML] articles were heavily written by people at IBM Corp., which is a big supporter of the open-source standard [ODF]. … Brooker said Microsoft had gotten nowhere in trying to flag the purported mistakes to Wikipedia's volunteer editors, so it sought an independent expert [=Rick Jelliffe] who could determine whether changes were necessary and enter them on Wikipedia. Brooker said Microsoft believed that having an independent source [= hiring Rick Jelliffe to "correct" the articles] would be key in getting the changes to stick — that is, to not have them just overruled by other Wikipedia writers.
Communication tactics: Thief shouts "catch the thief!". Tu quoque.
Competitition reduces a profit stream, Jan 30, 2008
Nicos Tsilas, Microsoft:
"Our competitors have targeted this one product — mandating one document format over others to harm Microsoft's profit stream."
Communication tactics: Our de-facto monopoly as our inherited right to exclude competitors. Destructive intentions.
IBM alone masterminded the september failure of the standard
"Let's be very clear," [Microsoft's] Paoli 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."
Communication tactics: IBM sabotage, bilateral struggle, single dissenter
Criticism of the SUN patent convenant
The [patent] covenant [of SUN] is limited to versions of the OpenDocument specification on which Sun has participated to the point of incurring an obligation.
Rob Weir (IBM) comments on the talk page:
And I suppose that the Wikipedia article on the U.S. Constitution should have a criticism stating that there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that prevents a future Constitutional Convention from reintroducing slavery?
Communication tactics: FUD
ISO Round 1
IBM led a global campaign urging national bodies to … not even consider Open XML, because ODF had made it through ISO/IEC JTC1 first – in other words, that Open XML should not even be considered on its technical merits because a competing standard had already been adopted. This campaign to stop even the consideration of Open XML in ISO/IEC JTC1 is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives – and without regard for the negative impact on consumer choice and technological innovation.
Official Microsoft statement, Jan 14, 2007
It was felt by many players that the specification was not ready and to large for fast-track. The fast-track process which resulted in 3000 technical comments confirmed that. It is a generally agreed principle in standard policy to avoid double standards that serve the same purpose. It contravenes the idea of standardization to offer "standard choice", i.e. a standard for everyone who applies.