On the "Fii destept" ("Be Smart") website http://www.fii-destept.ro , we have some arguments for legally buying Windows 7 preinstalled on new computers:

"Would you buy a bike without chain or brakes ? Then why would you buy a PC without Windows legally preinstalled ?" says the announcement. "P.S. If you've answered YES at the first question, then it must be something wrong with you".

"If you trust your neighbour, Gigi, to install an operating system on your new computer, well… Our advice is to purchase an original Windows 7 license and don't rely on Gigi".

Other campaign sites are http://ftw.ro/ („volunteer” bloggers on the same subject), http://www.schimbafontul.ro , http://scoaladeeficienta.ro/

The general impression is that Microsoft is targeting the less IT-educated audience in Eastern countries, to counterbalance market share loses in other parts of the world.

How do you comment on that ?

I spent 22 years as the chairman of what is now ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34. SC34 is the committee that standardized SGML in the 1980s and now is responsible for both ODF, supported by many open-source products, and OOXML, the XML released by Microsoft in response to ODF. Neither ODF nor OOXML has anything to do with ODA/ODIF, which have been dormant since the turn of the current century but were still under development in the 1990s in a committee that was parallel to the one that became SC34.

Our past analysis: OOXML is a response. Thank you very much for the confirmation. Stronger language from Mason found in this article.

I would argue the politically correct term is "NPE" = Non-practicing entity but… I am looking forward to buy i4i's word processor.

I am still curious what effects would be caused when the ISO standard OOXML format is patent encumbered but I hope the company will be so smart and agree with the EU on an opt-out provision in case of submarine patents.

We’ll be hosting another DII workshop soon, and this one will be of special interest to those who want to understand the inner workings of MCE (Markup Compatibility and Extensibility) as defined in Part 3 of ISO/IEC 29500. We’ve used MCE for new functionality in documents created by Office 2010, and members of SC34 WG4 have expressed interest in understanding the details of our implementation. So we’re planning a workshop in Redmond on Friday, September 18, the day after the upcoming SC34 plenary in nearby Bellevue, to do a deep-dive review of how Office 2010 uses MCE.

A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell one of its flagship products, Word, in the United States because of patent infringement. …Judge Leonard Davis.. ordered a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to an announcement by the plaintiff, Toronto-based i4i Inc.

i4i? Ah, the world famous inventor of the "Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other" which is so basic to our digital societies?

PERMANENT INJUNCTION
In accordance with the Court’s contemporaneously issued memorandum opinion and order
in this case, Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from performing the following
actions with Microsoft Word 2003, Microsoft Word 2007, and Microsoft Word products not more
than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007 (collectively “Infringing
and Future Word Products”) during the term of U.S. Patent No. 5,787,449:
1. selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States any
Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML,
.DOCX, or .DOCM file (“an XML file”) containing custom XML;
2. using any Infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file
containing custom XML;
3. instructing or encouraging anyone to use any Infringing and Future Word
Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
4. providing support or assistance to anyone that describes how to use any
infringing and Future Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML;
and
5. testing, demonstrating, or marketing the ability of the Infringing and Future
Word Products to open an XML file containing custom XML.
This injunction does not apply to any of the above actions wherein the Infringing and Future
Word Products open an XML file as plain text.
This injunction also does not apply to any of the above actions wherein any of the Infringing
and Future Word Products, upon opening an XML file, applies a custom tranform that removes all
custom XML elements.
This injunction further does not apply to Microsoft providing support or assistance to anyone
that describes how to use any of the infringing products to open an XML file containing custom
XML if that product was licensed or sold before the date this injunction takes effect.
This injunction becomes effective 60 days from the date of this order.
__________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of August, 2009.

Patent problems

We may add that while Microsoft always pays lip service to patent reform and patent quality, it effectively obstructed even moderate steps of pragmatic reform in the field of software patenting with massive lobbying investment and an ideological agenda. An ideological motivation you don't find among all the other players which have a real business. The massive lobbying also applies to colonial attitudes towards patent regimes of third nations in which the American company operates, or the European Union, our main area of operations as the FFII e.V. Ironically Microsoft itself is a favourite target of troll challenges and no one knows how much profits Marshall Phelps actually generates by selling their Microsoft FAT patents. In the spectacular case of TomTom we were told it was a very small amount. Some American critics as Brian Kahin speak of a patent bubble of low value patents but how is it going to burst? When you have a licensing business a good patent is one that hurts. Maybe the Encyclopedia Brittannica is an example, it failed commercially and now became an (unsuccesful) patent enforcement agency against actual market players.

In the recent referral G03/08 about software patentability an European Patent Office case named T 424/03 (Microsoft) was center to the debate. Find the Amicus letters here. Currently you also have a pending referral on Bilski in the US Supreme Court which is more far reaching than software. In the US many examination tests were dismantled such as the machine or transformation box test which opened the flood gates and unbalanced the system. It was reintroduced under the Bilski ruling but appealed at the supreme court. The Bilski test does not rule out software or business method patents but provides means to reduce the pressure within the examination system in later stages.

First you wreck the law, then the trolls wreck you.

Software Patents are a pain for market players of all sizes. In Europe some people from the FFII Community run a new Petition and we also prepare an international effort. The FFII, a charity under German law financed by membership fees and donations, has a lot of expertise and proposals on how to overcome the current troll problems and improve the examination and litigation system. Unfortunately learning the hard way does not guarantee a quick learning process.

What does it mean to Open XML?

Right now ISO/IEC 29500 ("OOXML") is patent encumbered and cannot be called an "open standard" according to conventional definitions and looks unusable for the public sector. Microsoft's own patents and lack of licensing clarity were a real concern, but i4i's enforcement efforts are on another level. ISO Open XML is currently in a critical situation as you can expect more enforcement attempts of i4i to follow in order to sqeeze money out of the market, in particular once Microsoft is forced to pay. On the other hand Microsoft will be forced to use all legal means to get rid of the patent. We need to keep a close eye on the upcoming developments but i4i may not prevail.

Expect the FFII, Eurolinux and many others to fight for that.

• European Petition: Stopsoftwarepatents.eu
• FFII Website FFII e.V. and FFII website for "Groff" text processing tools

Hier mal ein Text aus eigener Feder - die Weiterverwendung stelle ich frei,
ist erwünscht und hiermit gestattet, Adaption erlaubt, Referenz erwünscht:

Wie bekannt hat sich der Microsoft-Konzern, zusammen mit 3 Partner im
Rahmen der Open XML Formats Developer Group, sehr darum bemüht
ein von ihm selbst entworfenes Dokumentenformat unter dem Namen
"Office Open XML", kurz OOXML, im Dezember 2006 der ISO,
also der führenden Organisation für internationale Standardisierung,
zur Fortentwicklung und Absegnung mittels deren Verfahren an zu tragen.

Nach ersten Schritten, bei denen zahlreiche externe Kritiker auf die
generelle Inkonsistenz, Definitionsprobleme und so manche Unvollständigkeit
sowie auf allgemeine Unzulänglichkeiten hingewiesen hatten, ist dem
Vorschlag
trotzdem die Ehre zuteil geworden die ersten Hürden genommen zu haben
und in die höheren Stufen der Normen-Entwicklung vordringen zu dürfen.

Wie nun Benjamin Henrion, bekannter Gegner von Softwarepatenten unter
dem Dach des FFII, nun auf den Seiten der Initiative <NO>OOXML bekannt
gibt
(http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-174349/800-pages-of-defect-for-ooxml-here-it-is)
umfasst die jüngste Stellungnahme in Form eines Fehlerberichts nicht weniger
als 800 Seiten und präsentiert auch umgehend das zugehörige Dokument.
Das Dokument dürfte für Außenstehende regulär eigentlich nicht verfügbar
sein,
mithin handelt es sich also um eine Veröffentlichung die auf grauen
Wegen statt fand.
Henrion beklagt in diesem Zusammenhang eine gewisse Web- und Blog-Scheue
der ISO.

Das Dokument selbst datiert auf den 1. August 2009. Angesichts des nun schon
mehrere Jahre andauernden Bearbeitungsprozesses in den Reihen der ISO
erweckt solch ein dickes Werk keineswegs den Eindruck von Konvergenz und
damit besondere Zuversicht in eine baldige erfolgreiche Verabschiedung.
Eher mag man unter diesen Umständen den Wortmeldungen der Kritiker
aus der Anfangsphase durchaus zugeneigt sein, wie etwa 2007 auf dem
OesterBlog
diese nur 10 Kernpunkte umfassende Aufstellung mit Erläuterungen von
Problemen
(http://web.oesterchat.com/2007/09/05/probleme-mit-ooxml/). Was die ISO nun
vorgelegt hat übertrifft den Umfang dieser frühen Ansicht wohl um
Zehnerpotenzen.

Angesichts weiterer Patent-Anmeldungen von Microsoft im Dokumentenbereich
(http://www.heise.de/ix/XML-Patent-fuer-Microsoft--/news/meldung/143170),
darüber hinaus gehende Bemühungen um die Teilnahme an
Standardisierungsmaßnahmen
im Web-Bereich um das angehende HTML 5 herum
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/HTML-5-Microsoft-will-mitreden--/meldung/143253)
sowie harscher Kritik von Seiten IBM
(http://www.heise.de/ix/XML-Patent-fuer-Microsoft--/news/meldung/143170)
als auch von zahlreichen Regierungen nicht ganz unbedeutender Staaten
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Neuer-Protest-gegen-ISO-Zertifizierung-von-Microsofts-OOXML--/meldung/115301)
am hier recht eigentümlichen ISO Prozess tauchen natürlich Fragen auf.
So könnten sich staatliche Stellen, wie auch gewerbliche und private
Anwender
durchaus die Frage stellen, welche Qualität die althergebrachten
proprietären
Dokumentenstandards aus dem Hause Microsoft denn haben könnten, wenn
schon der bislang scheinbar beste Versuch zur Normierung eines Formats
aus dem gleichen Hause kaum in der Lage zu sein scheint die dafür nötigen
Anforderungen auch nach Jahren der Arbeit daran auch nur halbwegs zu
erfüllen.

Es bleibt letztendlich mehr als fraglich ob sich diese Norm für die Welt
hilfreich ist.
Gemessen am Aufwand für eine Umsetzung in Software steht schließlich
schon seit Mai 2005 mit dem OpenDocument-Format, kurz ODF,
ein klarer Sieger fest, der schon längst die ISO-Weihen genossen hat und
derzeit
bereits ohne viel Aufhebens hin zur Version 1.1 novelliert wird. Dies
nicht zuletzt
wegen der über 400 unterstützenden Unternehmen aus aller Welt in der
zugehörigen
Entwickler-Initiative "Open Document Format Alliance" sowie zahlreichen
existierenden
und gemeinhin tauglich funktionierenden Implementierungen, allen voran
die freie
Umsetzung im Rahmen von OpenOffice.org ab Version 2.0 (aktuell ist
Release 3.1).
Die praktizierte Übernahme in zahlreiche nationale Standards und vor
allem die
Übernahme als Vorgabe für die jeweiligen Verwaltungen schufen massiv Fakten.

Alexander Stohr
D-88131 Lindau (Bodensee)

The recommendation from Microsoft is that users roll back to an earlier version. So here is the official workaround for Office users:

• Remove Office manually, reinstall Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac from the original installation media, and then upgrade to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update. Do not upgrade to Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac Service Pack 2 (12.2.0) from Microsoft AutoUpdate.
• Use Time Machine to roll back to Office 2008 for Mac 12.1.9 Update or an earlier version.
• Convert your document to .doc, .xls, or .ppt, by using Open XML Converter.

There is a more simple fix: Open file formats as ODF and more competition. Maybe you'd better try other word processors for instance Openoffice for Mac or Neooffice?

If you have time to read it, there are probably nice bits in there.

Microsoft will be the "social host" of the Seattle meetings, hosting the reception and dinner, etc. They will also be organizing a Document Interoperability Initiative (DII) event to occur the day after the SC34 Plenary, at Microsoft, to announce how they intent to support Office 2010 as extensions to OOXML.

The previous DII event organised by Microsoft in Brussels was basically a meeting of the Microsoft ecosystem.

Here is the announcement of the meeting on the SC34 website:

For general questions about Westin meeting logistics, or things to do around Seattle, please contact Dave Welsh, moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd#moc.tfosorcim|hslewmd, cell phone +1 206 313 0879.

[…]

More hotel options, at different rates, are also available. For more hotel options in the immediate Bellevue area and the Seattle vicinity, please try Live.com.

[…]

Located in downtown Bellevue, just twenty minutes outside Seattle, The Westin Bellevue is situated minutes from major corporate offices including Microsoft, Nintendo of America, T-Mobile, and Expedia.

You can expect a lot of people member of the Microsoft ecosystem at the next SC34 meeting in Redmond.

A word processor including a native XML file format is provided. The well formed XML file fully represents the word-processor document, and fully supports 100% of word-processor's rich formatting. There are no feature losses when saving the word-processor documents as XML. A published XSD file defines all the rules behind the word-processor's XML file format. Hints may be provided within the XML associated files providing applications that understand XML a shortcut to understanding some of the features provided by the word-processor. The word-processing document is stored in a single XML file. Additionally, manipulation of word-processing documents may be done on computing devices that do not include the word-processor itself.

Inventors: Jones; Brian M. (Redmond, WA), Bishop; Andrew K. (Redmond, WA), Snyder; Daniel R. (Bellevue, WA), Sawicki; Marcin (Kirkland, WA), Little; Robert A. (Redmond, WA), Krueger; Anthony D. (Woodinville, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.: 11/005,183
Filed: December 6, 2004

Brussels, 22nd May 2008
Antitrust: Commission takes note of Microsoft's announcement on supporting ODF in Office

The European Commission has taken note of Microsoft's announcement on 21st May concerning supporting ODF in Office. The Commission would welcome any step that Microsoft took towards genuine interoperability, more consumer choice and less vendor lock-in. In its ongoing antitrust investigation concerning interoperability with Microsoft Office (see MEMO/08/19), the Commission will investigate whether the announced support of ODF (OpenDocument format) in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/324&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr

I find Georg's argument is flawed. It draws a line between competition fines, structural funds for a candidate nation and Romanian software procurement. From an advocacy perspective ideally you get your criticism embraced by the major opposition party and make inroads there, contacts you establish and use to support your cause when the tide changes. Free software supporters may be interested to convince their European Parliament candidates:
http://www.freesoftwarepact.eu/

The news just emerged on OSOR.eu and other sources:

http://www.osor.eu/news/ro-proprietary-licence-deal-draws-ire-open-source-proponents
http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/05/microsoft-makes-itself-at-home-in.html

The authorities seems to be totally disconnected from the actual national reality. It's not only the harsh financial times, but - despite many malicious obstacles - the Free Sofware community is growing steadily in Romania, advocating the official adoption of Free Software in Romania's public administration.

manoj87

Find Lawyer

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html

"If there is a deliberate attempt to obstruct competition we will sooner or later see the competition authorities march in." Indeed. Note that I would rather have written "As there is a deliberate attempt…". But my concern is that this could take some time to happen. There is therefore a case for mounting the pressure without waiting. This being said, I agree that most of the effort must remain focused on broadening the adoption of ODF, and only smart investments should be directed towards Microsoft tricks against interoperability.

The best thing to do is to move on and ensure broad public adoption of ODF and open standards.

If there is a deliberate attempt to obstruct competition we will sooner or later see the competition authorities march in. There is no need to be reactive. Pressure can be easily mounted with small and smart investments.

This being said, I don't know if a petition is the most efficient way to reach the goal. This is just a proposal, and better ideas are welcome. But I think we cannot simply wait and see.

That’s the plan for next week. A harder-hitting press release with Fact Sheet. Stay tuned!

The supporters of ODF should react to this. I therefore propose the following actions:

- Ask the ODF Alliance to publish a press release recommending not using the "Save as ODF" facility included MS Office SP2, due to the bad quality of the produced ODF files.

The ODF Alliance issued a press release on 28-Apr-09 saying:

The ODF Alliance today welcomed the release of Microsoft’s Service Pack 2 for Office 2007, a software update that provides long-awaited support for the OpenDocument Format (ODF), while cautioning governments to evaluate the new software to ensure sufficient interoperability with other ODF-supporting applications.
[…]
"Microsoft has dragged its feet for over three years now. The key test will be whether Microsoft’s support for ODF plays well with other ODF-supporting software,” continued Marcich. “Governments will want to further evaluate the support for ODF provided by Microsoft and whether it sufficiently meets their needs for greater openness and interoperability.”

The initial tests made by Rob Weir shows the very bad interoperability delivered, and I think that a warning to the users is deserved.

- Start a petition asking Microsoft to make MS Office SP2 unavailable until the design flaws in the product have been corrected.

We must make it clear to Microsoft that their attitude is not acceptable, and force them to behave in a better way.

Would it work to promote OOXML and the next generation ooxml implementations (let us coin them code name "Greenhorn")? eWeek's Larry Seltzer:

Obviously, Microsoft would like to have us all move to the new formats, mostly by virtue of moving to Office 2007, but that's not happening soon and Microsoft's not making us do it. In fact, Office 2003 will be getting security updates for five more years, until April 8, 2014, the same date security fixes for Windows XP will end.

Needless to say that this is about the implementation. He is speaking here about earlier implementations to support the format. He talks about support for the format as such.

…the damage from targeted attacks can be immense, and many users may be exposed. If Microsoft is going to claim to support the old formats for five more years, it needs to make security updates for them a high priority for five more years.

You can be sure that the corpus of existing binary document formats will be continued to be supported. The only revelevant question is if the next generation will be OOXML or ODF.

Will we listen to the binary insecurity tune to force customers to upgrade?

Whether OOXML Wins Or Not, Older MS Docs Aren't Safe

Here is another one to sell the next Office generation: the old binary formats are not "open". Diabolic laughter included.

29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by Corrigendum or by Amendment

Defects in ISO/IEC 29500:2008
Explanation of whether to resolve defects
by Corrigendum or by Amendment
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG4
2009-03-26
[…]

However, ISO/IEC 29500 is a very large and complex multi-part standard, and it is not surprising that the text contains many unintentional technical defects, which nevertheless don't make it impossible to implement the standard.

In the course of drafting, some existing office document features were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing documents in ISO/IEC 29500.

The corpus of existing documents probably means Office 2007 documents, which is an undocumented file format.

Here is the email I sent to the SC34 chairman:

From Benjamin Henrion <gro.iiff|noirnehb#gro.iiff|noirnehb>
to moc.liamg|12homas#moc.liamg|12homas
date Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:53 PM
subject Definition of an "existing document"

Dear Chairman of SC34,

I would like to submit a request and a comment by having read the
following text:

0036(pdf) 29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by
Corrigendum or by Amendment

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2009-0036.pdf

"In the course of drafting, some existing office document features
were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it
being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing
documents in ISO/IEC 29500."

Can you provide a definition of what an "existing documents" means?

Best regards,

—
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403

Let's have a look what definition they provide.

http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2009-0036.pdf

29500 Defects: Explanation of whether to resolve defects by Corrigendum or by Amendment

Defects in ISO/IEC 29500:2008
Explanation of whether to resolve defects
by Corrigendum or by Amendment
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG4
2009-03-26
[…]

However, ISO/IEC 29500 is a very large and complex multi-part standard, and it is not surprising that the text contains many unintentional technical defects, which nevertheless don't make it impossible to implement the standard.

In the course of drafting, some existing office document features were unintentionally overlooked, which result in it being impossible to fully represent some of the corpus of existing documents in ISO/IEC 29500.

The corpus of existing documents means Office 2007 documents, which is an undocumented file format.

The document N1101/N1168 contains for example, several items in which they recognize that there are decisions made in the BRM (BRM resolutions) which were not incorporated into the final published text of the standard. In other words, even taking almost a year after the aproval of the standard to publish the text (yes, approved without reading), there wasn’t time/attention or anything else necessary to assure that the changes were published in the text (most of those changes, “conditioned” the approval). What makes me much more angry about this is that during the BRM I asked about who would be responsible for verifying that all these changes would be part of the final text and the answer was ITTF (kind of joint ISO/IEC secretariat).

He may be wrong that this is the final proof of misconduct at the BRM under the lead of Alex Brown and its mission impossible to fix the standard. Following the shocking uncoverings Jesper Lund Stocholm, Alex Brown and Doug Mahugh are acting like little school girls with their gossip and giggles on Twitter. But there may be method to the madness. OOXML is already approved by ISO JTC1. Microsoft no longer needs to persuade the national bodies or influence the press or call out their business partners. It is enough for them to rely on social engineering in SC34, shmoozing, sponsorships, free dinners, free beer, etc.

The reporting of Groklaw about the Microsoft outbursts of unfiltered truth and sillyness made Alex Brown hit back to BRM allegations and he claims the British BSI did not do its job, didn't review ODF properly:

Fact is though, we (the team) did NOT read ODF - we merely made a rapid pass through parts of the text over half a day, looking for obvious problems. Even so, the UK generated by far the greatest number of NB comments. This fact tells you all you need to know about the degree of scrutiny ODF got in its JTC 1 ballot. If you believe it was studied in detail in the UK, you are very wrong. … We learned from our ODF mistake, and rectified our errors [with open xml].

Pamela Jones of Groklaw answers to his flamebait:

Now, as it happens, I have formed the impression that you and the the MS elves want to "interoperate" with ODF so Microsoft forces can take it over, since even you must now realize that OOXML will never work and will never be adopted.

So, I did download few dissertation examples but was not sure about the authenticity of the source. Then one day I found this service giving away FREE dissertations. Initially I thought they must have a hidden cost or something but when I read the whole page, I was quite relaxed since they clearly mentioned why they are giving the dissertation sample. Furthermore, they clearly stated that the sample dissertation will not necessary be relevant to your subject. The objective behind giving the example dissertation is to help students understand the intricacies of writing a dissertation rather than making students copy and paste the material.

The page also talks about the disadvantages dissertation example can bring as well as how to make good use of the downloaded dissertation sample. All and all I did learn a few good things about dissertation writing especially, how to make my dissertation writing better using a dissertation sample even if it is not related to my topic or subject.

I would recommend them to students who are in search of good dissertation samples and also appreciate members sharing their dissertation writing experiences.
http://www.dissertation-help.co.uk/dissertation_samples.htm

What is your exit strategy?

«In order to be answered, you have to be a client of Microsoft, as by article 9 of law 54/2008, there is a "duty of cooperation" which means that the survey must be answered, says Rui Seabra, vice-president of the board of ANSOL, in the association's blog.

The survey aims to be a guide for evaluation of the risks in the area of public procurement and granting public benefits, so Rui wonders «why a Council for Corruption Prevention is benefiting Microsoft.»

A reply to a citizen's email who questioned this practice was found to be extremely revealing: it's all about vendor lock-in. An extensive analysis (in portuguese) details many technical misconsiderations made by the Account's Court, some of them quite unreasonable:

• that Microsoft's binary and XML formats are open standards
• considers Microsoft's OSP an acceptable software license
• that since they use Microsoft, others must use Microsoft
• OpenDocument Format is used by a small number of people (perhaps the state should not have wheelchair ramps since wheelchairs are used by a small number of people), and would require installing third party software

The reply actually tries to turn the third item into the worse problem, and avoids the matter of granting an exclusive benefit to Microsoft, which would go directly against the objectives of the survey.

The conference will be held in Bucharest - details on http://www.eliberatica.ro

Romania is still a "red mark" on Microsoft's empire map: no official discussions about OpenDocument at government's level, Excel studied in Economics University (ASE http://www.ase.ro) like the Bible, no OpenOffice.org or alternative software in schools, OLPC program furiously rejected by Romania's think-tank senators ("this toy computer can't even run Microsoft Word !")…

Even Romania's president officially thanks to Bill Gates on his visit in Romania because "an entire generation of IT professionals grew up illegally copying Microsoft Office" and "Microsoft is an important, strategic partner to Romania's govermnent"…

Maybe Eliberatica it's a good occasion to inform Romanian public at large about the OOXML corruption scandal, the importance of real standards and the peril of proprietary software ?

Can someone please help?

Buy Term Paper | Term Paper

We’re going to continue working closely with others in the IT industry - customers, partners, competitors and developers, including those in open source communities. They will help identify and solve interoperability challenges. As we mentioned earlier, this is a time of change. We’ve made some progress and we’re going to continue taking steps toward fostering greater interoperability.

Also the terms openness and interoperability are embraced in the article as if the company was going to apply for OFE membership and to stop obstruction of forceful Slovak proposals in the European Parliament for better interoperability (which were initially overlooked).

We also find a reference to a public affairs forum:

One forum where this takes place is in the Interoperability Executive Customer (IEC) Council, which consists of more than 35 CIOs and CTOs from governments and leading corporations around the world. The IEC Council helps Microsoft identify and solve the top challenges facing customers today. Working with them, we’re actively resolving issues in the areas of systems management, security and identity management, as well as office productivity and collaboration tools.

Not IEC as in ISO/IEC. That acronym overlap seems to be just a coincidence. It was established in 2006 and made no significant impact on the OOXML process. Details about the process can be found here.

Anyway, what is hot? You know these PRs make you suspicious. They are usually sent out when something is going on. Texas to go for open document formats? One year old news. And I am convinced no one is aware of the Dutch economist message which could be turned into an openness tsunami in the context of recent bailout spending madness:

Governments should seriously consider to act as leading customers to enhance competition on the market for PC operating systems, office applications and enterprise content management software, suggest micro economists at the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB). Governments should also require open source software in public procurement.

The CPB economists write these three markets are 'tentative examples' of inefficient markets. Such markets suffer from vendor lock-in and the lack of competition is stifling innovation. Normal economic processes are not strong enough to correct such failing markets. "This will not lead to optimal choices of licensing, price, quality and innovation."

Paoli's colleague Craig Shank has a different concept: vendors help governments to make the most of their IT.

This is a time of change. Increasing globalization, rising Internet use, and higher consumer and business expectations are driving increased demand for technology choice and flexibility. Governments and businesses alike have assembled a diverse mix of applications and technologies from a variety of vendors. In this environment, technology can present new opportunities and deliver new solutions. Key to that is helping organizations make the most of their mixed IT environments.

"Vendor capture" as economists call that. Don't expect any trade association to lobby against it. This has to be left to common sense and the ethos of public officials who want to keep their independence. A focus on market order improvements, even in times of bulk emergency keynesian spending on broadband, green-IT and ICT education remains important. In the current situation I am sure a "microbillion" for interoperability actions can be made available in many nations around the world. Crumps for common sense, free markets and more openness.

Mandatory ODF policies are only a small step in a long transformation process in the field of communications technologies but it is time to walk the talk. The financial markets have shown that we cannot afford to lean back on the regulatory side as society as a whole suffers the consequences.

The British Library rather became a standard body puppet: aye.

Of course the Microsoft digitisation project was absolutely unrelated to their genuine interest in Open xml.

Fraunhofer Fokus is also represented in the DIN document committee for document formats. There it was a proponent of the adoption of the questionable OpenXML format while German government representatives sent furious protest letters. Now Fraunhofer is in the news again:

February 23, 2009 Microsoft partners with Fraunhofer Fokus
Fraunhofer Fokus recently announced a new project to create an IS29500-Validator and Document-Library. The project will test the validity of documents regarding conformance to ISO/IEC 29500. As part of the project activities Fraunhofer Fokus will initiate the development of an Open Source document validator.

Fraunhofer FOKUS initiates its new Document-Interoperability-Lab. The lab will test the validity of documents regarding the document-standard ISO/IEC 29500 known as Office Open XML. As part of the lab activities Fraunhofer Fokus will initiate the Open Source development of a document validator. Additionally a library consisting of valid test and template documents will be offered. Word processing, presentation as well as spreadsheet documents will be taken into consideration. Microsoft Corporation will support these activities as development partner.

The question is who will trust the research results of Fraunhofer Fokus? And why does the German tax payer invest in a research institution that sells out to companies across the Atlantic regardless of our national public interest in interoperability? For instance Fraunhofer Fokus applauded(!) the ISO adoption of Open XML.

• 2008-04-09 Fraunhofer FOKUS begrüßt die ISO-Normierung DIS 29500 von Office Open XML

Fraunhofer DIN NIA person Gerd Schürmann sent also emails that seemed to be equivalent to those of Microsoft's Mario Wendt. Let's look if the document experts can validate that. Does it make you feel comfortable that Schuermann was named for the DIN NIA 43 subcommittee which deals with translation matters of ISO/IEC 26300 (ODF) and ISO 29500 (OOXML)?

Here is what Doug Mahugh is saying on the ODF mailing-list:

It's worth noting that the ODF metadata mechanisms don't allow for the use of a private/custom schema to tag content within a document. And that use case has value to many users. So if we decide that ODF won't be able to support those types of scenarios, for whatever reason, we should not be surprised to find that users who need such capabilities will look elsewhere.

Consider the trivial example of a pre-existing document, created years ago, which needs to be logged in to a content management system that requires an abstract to be identified for each document. If the format of the document is HTML, then a div with class="abstract" can be used to tag the appropriate paragraph(s) as the abstract. If the format of the document is DOCX, a customXml element with element="abstract" can be used for the same purposes. In both cases the document content remains valid HTML or WordprocessingML, while the user adds the custom semantics required for their purpose. The custom semantics can be (and should be) ignored by others. The user is free to innovate quickly, and does not have to think in terms of a tradeoff between strict compliance and flexibility/business value. They can, and do, have the best of both worlds in such scenarios: strict compliance to a standard, and freedom to innovate quickly for their own specialized purposes.

I think ODF would benefit from being as supportive of such scenarios as HTML, IS29500 and other formats already are. No committee can anticipate every possible class of extension that users might find useful, so I think the format itself should allow for clean, simple tagging of content according to schemas that may never be standardized, and may never be widely known or used. Done correctly, such tagging puts no burden on simple interoperability between word processors (which typically ignore it), but can enable other types of interoperability that many people find valuable.

- Doug

There is only one way to do interoperability at Microsoft: embrace and extend. "Freedom to innovate" here means "Freedom to embrace and extend", or "Freedom for Microsoft to add proprietary patented extensions that makes users dependent on Microsoft technologies".

Time to join the ODF TC!

An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights.
In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker would have to host a Web site that contains an Office file that is used to attempt to exploit this vulnerability. In addition, compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability. An attacker would have no way to force users to visit a malicious Web site. Instead, an attacker would have to persuade them to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link that takes them to the attacker's site.
The vulnerability cannot be exploited automatically through e-mail. For an attack to be successful a user must open an attachment that is sent in an e-mail message. Users who have installed and are using the Office Document Open Confirmation Tool for Office 2000 will be prompted with Open, Save, or Cancel before opening a document.

So users probably should be very cautious with .xlsx files sent to them until the risks are contained through security updates.

Background:

• PCmag
• Security Focus

Michael Dell might think twice about dishing out a sales pitch to a world leader in the future after Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin very publicly dissed his patronising offer of help. … After praising the country's technical deftness, Dell-boy asked the ex-KGB agent: "How can we as an IT sector help you broaden the economy as you move out of a crisis and take advantage of that great scientific talent that you have?" … "We don't need any help," he barked. "We are not invalids. We don't have limited capacity. Pensioners should be helped, developing countries should be helped."

It's fortunate that it didn't start pointing to an adult-related site… lol.

Keep in mind it is 'just' oil and gas. Petrol is elementary to keep you warm and your car running. You can buy it on a world market from multiple sources. Only oil companies and leftists believe that you need to go to war to secure access to petrol resources. But what about the real dependencies of regions like Europe on software and standards? The Russians are here about to lower these strategic dependencies in their national interest. The Open XML standardisation effort has shown to players in the IT business how ruthless it gets when strategic concerns come into play, and multinational corporations and governments are not much different here.

Most governments around the world already have a national operating system, it is called Windows and their tax payers have to pay large amounts of money for this national 'choice' to an American company. Fortunately it also contributes to the functioning of the political system through sponsoring of regulatory action, new career perspectives for politicians, sponsoring of an EU Presidency or reform of 'open standards' requirements. Ireland is a good place to base your software licensing business as the Irish government helps you with tax evasion.

A good reason why governments need Windows is an Office application and you can say it is their National Office Application. It only runs on Windows, has a cousin on the Mac and tinkerers sometimes manage to get it work under Linux occasionally, perhaps. Just ask, you find so many good excuses why it became their National Office Application and why they want it to remain their Office application. For instance because governments urgently need the Office software to process the files other people with the same software sent to them. Thus some governments backed the standardisation of the proprietary format through ISO. The OOXML saga.

Other governments want to be able to switch to other products or actually do that. Most of them migrate to Staroffice or [OpenOffice.org] which support the ODF format and the old binary doc format out of the box. Government agencies understand that a creation of an international standard as ODF was crucial to reduce their switching costs, they understood that only strong economic pressure would force Microsoft into full ODF compliance. Some governments also understand that you have to invest into alternative products and migration studies to further reduce the dependencies and built up the market pressure for interoperability.

I wonder if Russia will consider to develop its national word processor as well. A wise Russian will understand the danger to their national independence that a support for the Open XML format instead of ODF bears. If they have no opportunity but to chose Open XML it shows that their national independence is already compromised. When I went to the military part of the mission of military service was to shield our nation from foreign extortion. I wonder how these institutions can contribute to liberate our nations from these dependencies. Guns and nukes do not seem to help against the viral software sales model from Redmond. A clear software and interoperability strategy and effective action does help, as long as governments do not fraternise with the opponent of their national interest.

Andrew Tridgell, …, did not speak about this subject; rather he focused on the way Microsoft manouevred the OOXML standard through the International Standards Organisation last year, using means which are widely acknowledged as being non-kosher.

Tridgell said Microsoft had subverted the entire standards process by ramming the OOXML standard through and the company should make reparations, including an apology.

Last year there was a bunch of other outraged persons in Norway. I leave it to you for now to make up your mind how this relates to recent unexpected developments on the European level you find in the news. CTO Hakon Wium Lie explained what powers their entrepreneurial success in a Geneva conference: Genuine Open Standards and adherence of their competitors to them. As a coincidence the Open Forum Europe event happened to take place at the same time and in the same building as the Ballot Resolution Meeting for OOXML.

Poor Lawrence Crumpton.

We were particularly pleased to see the issue of software patents addressed in a manner that prevents them being used to hinder competition rather than the original purpose of patent law, to promote innovation. We are concerned about the current state of the standards process, as evidenced by the recent ISO process relating to a standard that no-one implements "Open XML" which appears to be achieving full recognition in spite of safeguards in the standards process rather than because of them.

Other contributions can be found here. Although Microsoft said it wants to offer Open XML patent licensing on a royalty-free base it strongly advocates against the existing European interoperability definition of open standards which currently provides for no patent restrictions. Of course it doesn't. The American company writes to the Commission:

The discussion of standards and technical specifications is necessary, and would serve the requirements of an interoperability framework better without the redefinition of the meaning of “open standards” carried over from EIF 1.0.

For IT professionals it might sound odd that a term as 'open standards' the EU Interoperability Framework explains correctly is suddenly described as a redefinition by the very company that redefines it and invested so much in lobbying. You are lying, yells the liar.

The European Interoperability Framework 1.0 is so popular because it adapts to business reality. This is why the contributions to the EIF update process which lead to an EIF2 have a specific political relevance for software professionals in Europe. If foreign companies succeed to subvert terminology and standards driven by their commercial interests, what role for Europeans whom their administrations and standard bodies are supposed to serve?

NORMAPME is an international non-profit association created in 1996 with the support of the European Commission, under the full name of the "European Office of Crafts, Trades and Small and Medium- Sized Enterprises for Standardisation".

NORMAPME is the unique European organisation focused on small enterprise interests in the European standardisation system. Its members represent over 11 million enterprises in all European countries, including all EU and EFTA member states.

In a letter to CEN members and National mirror committees of ISO JTC1 NormAPME asked these decision makers to disapprove the Open XML format. The document that was leaked to us is dated 26 of march 2008. The text fully endorses the common criticism of the format, but director Loucas Gourtsoyannis who signed the letter added another aspect to the communication:

The standard drafting process did not guarantee the involvement [of] all interested stakeholders, including SMEs. Instead it was monopolized by Microsoft.

You might argue that SMEs do not implement or develop Open XML. Small and medium sized companies exercise (pretty) weak procurement power. They have to take what is dictated by market consensus. A standard process is not only relevant to the different vendors, notably Microsoft, IBM, SUN, Adobe et al., but also to buyers as consumers and regular SME customers. Small and medium sized companies are the backbone of the European economy and unlike larger players they don't pay taxes in offshore-irelands or ask for state aid but contribute to domestic prosperity, job and wealth creation and fiscal income. Organisations as NORMAPME ensure that the SME's voice gets heard and their interests are better reflected in a standard process.

A real surprise to many observer of the Open XML debate was that most of the usual suspects of SME astroturf were not called to arms in the Open XML standard struggle. The new turf Voices for Innovation seriously lacked maturity and didn't take off. The attempt appeared rather foolish. Vendor capture was not restrained but frank, as if European standard setting was the natural domain of European sales departments and partners. Another indication of SME weakness in the process.

As now all relevant sides agree that the ISO fasttrack process needs reform, I am curious what proposals the standard technocrats in Europe will come up with to strengthen true SME representation in the standard setting process. New instruments of competition law are expected to be developed to overcome the misrepresentation problem for which OOXML became a paradigm. How to crack down on future standard voting cartells in Europe and foreign influence? I wonder what reform suggestions NORMAPME would make.

One aspect is evident, the interests of 11 million European SME need to be better reflected in standard setting, to get on an equal footing with multinational vendors.

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/21/cat-is-out-of-the-bag/

Here is the letter for the ECMA376v1:

Here is the letter for the ECMA376v2:

If you have some time, you could transcript it for blind people and bloggers to quote it.

ECMA has also a good sense of humor (the right source is a PPT presentation about ECMA):

Patents: Solid and proven patent policy and practice:

The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve
recommendations of Standards which are covered by
patents when such patents will not be licensed by their
owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.”

However, Ecma does not:

• Assess the essentiality and validity of patents for implementation of a standard, nor
• Conduct patent searches for patents used in standards, nor
• Define the term “Reasonable And Non Discriminatory” (RAND)

We have requested a commercial patent license in July, but radio silence since then on the Microsoft side. Yet another proof that the patent system does not work.

The ECMA code of conduct in patent matters is here:

1. Policy
General Declaration:
The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve recommendations of Standards which are covered by patents when such patents will not be licensed by their owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.

1.1
In case the proposed Standard is covered by issued patents of Ecma members only: Members of the General Assembly are asked to state the Company licensing policy with respect to these patents.

I wonder what the latest requirement means. Nobody knows exactly which Microsoft patents covers the specification. Nobody has ever seen the list.

Even The Register covers the story:

Microsoft has today released a plug-in for Firefox that allows Open XML documents to be viewed within the popular open source browser. The software giant said that its new Open XML Document Viewer works within Firefox and can be used on Windows and Linux platforms without needing a local installation of MS Office. .. So today’s announcement will be seen – by MS at least – as going some way to placate the firm’s naysayers.

Let's check the source.

Interoperability solutions announced today translate Open XML documents to a Web page (HTML) allowing readability on Web-friendly browsers such as Firefox,…

There are two kinds of people. Those who don't get it and those who enjoy the failblog. Those who enjoy the failblog may also wonder why the referenced document is called 12-03DIIBrusselsPR.mspx.

Anyway, at present also the ISO standard ODF is supported by Firefox through inadequate and experimental plugin solutions.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published the specification for a Microsoft-created file format that caused bitter debate during its path to become an international standard.

The documentation for Office Open XML (OOXML) runs 7,228 pages and can be ordered on CD from the ISO for 342 Swiss francs (US$285). The specification is named ISO/IEC DIS 29500:2008.

Microsoft won a hard-fought battle in April when the ISO announced enough countries voted to approve OOXML as an international standard.

OOXML was opposed by many on grounds it was unneeded, as software makers could use OpenDocument Format (ODF), a less complicated office software format that was already an international standard.

The debate became so embittered that IBM, which backs ODF, threatened in September to consider leaving standards bodies that allowed dominant companies such as Microsoft to wield what it perceived as undue influence. Microsoft was accused of leaning on countries in order to secure enough votes for OOXML to pass.

ISO has also made a press release, referring to file formats produced by a particular vendor:

This defines a set of XML elements and attributes, over and above those defined by ISO/IEC 29500-1, that provide support for legacy Microsoft Office applications; that is, those prior to the 2008 release. It specifies requirements for Office Open XML consumers and producers that comply to the transitional conformance category.

BoycottNovell got the message right:

By the way, do you know when is the official burial date of ISO?

Who pays for interoperability in public IT procurement?

A public letter to the IT industry about document format standards

Delft, 16 November 2008

L.S.,

It is not uncommon for governments to voluntarily head for vendor
lock-in[1]. As a citizen, however, I have a direct stake in my
government basing its public procurement of IT on open standards. This
stake may be most evident for 'civil ICT standards' (Andy Updegrove),
i.e., for standards that support access to government information and
exchanges with government such as document formats[2] (e.g.,
sustainable digital data). However, I also have a standards-related
stake in IT procured for government-internal processes because, first,
in practice government-internal and –external IT processes cannot be
separated[3]. Second, because of the increasing costs that accompany
vendor-lock-in. Third, because government procurement is good for 16%
of the European IT market and is therefore a means towards a more
competitive and sustainable IT market.

A main reason for voluntary vendor lock-in is the fear of lack of
interoperability of IT products in a multi-vendor environment.
Experience shows that standard-compliant products from different
vendors need not necessarily interoperate. As is known, a dominant
vendor may design in incompatibility to break the integrity of a
standard (e.g. Java platform). But usually incompatible standard
implementations are the unhappy outcome of good intentions.

Problem of document format standards

In the field of document formats there is an additional complexity.
For the external reader: ISO[4] has ratified two competing
XML-oriented standards for document formats. The first one, the Open
Document Format (ODF, ISO/IEC 26300) was ratified in 2006 and stems
from OASIS, a standards consortium. The second one, Office Open XML
(OOXML, ISO/IEC 29500) originally stems from Ecma International,
another standards consortium. Although ISO's OOXML process has been
widely contested, which caused a delay in its final approval,
according to the ISO website the standards is to be published shortly.

ISO's approval of a second, overlapping standard will not have
lessened government fears about interoperability in a multi-vendor
environment. The market has become less rather than more transparent
by means of this standards effort. To re-create some transparency
about the interoperability of applications and reduce the fear of post
hoc expenses in public procurement, conformance and interoperability
testing is needed. Plug-test events are needed to test the factual
interoperability of standards-based products from different vendors.
To be credible to all concerned, a neutral, independent testing centre
such as ETSI may need to be involved to e.g. develop test-suites and
coordinate plug test events.

Interoperability between multi-vendor OOXML applications

Current discussions on open standards highlight that multiple
implementations are an important sign that standards are really open
(see presentations by Rishab Gosh and by Thiru Balasubramaniam[5]).
Regarding ISO's OOXML, the contention is that no company has yet
implemented the full standard, not even its primary sponsor Microsoft;
and that the six thousand page specification is too complex and too
inconsistent to implement. Are these contentions true? If not,
governments will want more than verbal claims to the contrary.
Moreover, they can easily be countered with third party conformance
and interoperability tests, including a plug-test event with multiple
OOXML-compliant IT vendors.

Interoperability between ODF applications

All major vendors, Microsoft included, have agreed to support ODF
ISO/IEC 26300, or are already doing so. That is, the availability of
multiple implementations is not a problem here. Moreover,
interestingly, two weeks ago OASIS initiated a technical committee to
organize conformance and interoperability tests. Given its scope[6],
this committee will provide transparency to governments about the
degree of conformance of applications to ODF and the interoperability
of ODF-documents. Less clear is whether the committee also intends to
address interoperability between standards versions, or more general:
what policy it has on standards change[7]. To my knowledge, such
policies have not yet been defined by any standards consortium or
standards body. They would befit the area of civil ICT standards.

The OASIS committee explicitly does not address "identifying or
commenting on particular implementations" or any certification
activities. Government procurement officers will ultimately need
testing at this level and want to involve an independent third party
testing centre for this purpose. Moreover, OASIS, too, might at a
later stage want to involve an independent third party in order to
avoid credibility problems.

Having two overlapping standards brings about its own problems, as
testifies a review of current ad hoc solutions - converters,
translators, plug-ins - to re-create compatibility between
ODF-products and Microsoft's partial implementation of the OOXML
standard[8]. Those who develop a low quality and overlapping standard,
qualifications which also OOXML supporters use, are not the ones who
pay for the consequences. Regrettably, citizens will be paying the
price for lack of interoperability.

Although there is no formal accountability to fall back upon in
standardization[9], those who initiated the duplicating effort may
feel a - corporate social - responsibility for what happened. Their
help is needed to shift interoperability costs from governments and
citizens (post hoc) back to IT vendors (ex ante), the source of the
interoperability problem. As a start, will they fully cooperate and
support OASIS' initiative of conformance and interoperability testing?
Are they prepared to shoulder the costs of independent, third party
conformance and interoperability tests, tests that are needed to
assure governments that no unexpected problems will arise ex post?

Kind regards,

Tineke Egyedi

Delft University of Technology

A while ago, I was riding my mountain bike under the deluge, with plenty of mud on the eyes, I was unable to ride correctly, it was dangerous. Now it seems that Alex Brown has also some mud in the eyes:

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) requested at the beginning of October that ODF maintenance work be aligned between Oasis and ISO, in a move that Groklaw's Pamela Jones described as "a takeover attempt of ODF". Groklaw alleged that ISO's SC34 committee, which oversees the development of Microsoft's rival OOXML format, was "tilted by Microsoft employees". SC34 would be in charge of ISO's ODF work.

However, Alex Brown, the convener of SC34, told ZDNet Asia sister site ZDNet UK at the time that Jones's post was "chock-full of misinformation and spin". ISO/IEC standards have to be managed and published by ISO/IEC committees even if they are created elsewhere, Brown said.

Dear Mr Brown, who paid the dinner in Korea? How many Microsoft employees were around the table?

If the code does not cover the specification then it covers something else. The patent indeminification has nothing to do with that.

My point exactly, as I see it. Code that is covered can not be safely released under the GPL, because if anyone modifies it to do something differently, it will no longer constitute a "covered implementation", and then the code is a target for a lawsuit based on a number of undisclosed MS patents. This is not how the GPL development model is supposed to work, and such patent bombs are highly undesirable in any open source project.

I think we agree for the most part, so I should probably just shut up. :)

Tanyaa
Internet Dating

Anyone touching the code needs to be made aware of the fact that those parts of the code which concern OOXML are not to be changed to do anything that Microsoft does not grant you explicit rights to implement, and there is simply no provision for that in the GPL license model.

This is why the OSP is incompatible with GPL. This is why I decided to use the big word "free" and say that OSP is not a license suitable for free software. The freedom to innovate, modify and redistribute for any purpose is not there, it is explicitly taken away by the OSP. This is why I think it is still unsafe to include OOXML support in GPL software. If Microsoft wanted the OSP to be GPL compatible, they would just have told us exactly which patents they hold that they think are applicable, licensed them perpetually for free to anyone for any purpose and be done with it. That would be 100% compatible with the GPL, and send a clear message to developers that they are not up to any tricks. Of course, it would also make those patents useless as ammo for litigation from then on.

You need to perform separate licensing of related code to develop under the OSP - GPL licensing by itself is not going to cut it. In fact, I think this is intentional. MS wants to drive a wedge into some big GPL projects and get some non-GPL code in there at all costs.

"See, even OpenOffice.org uses dual licensing, you shouldn't be so concerned with not being able to use the GPL. Please accept our vague and unspecific patent promise, it's free. Just don't read the fine print."

I do not think I used the word "free" in a sloppy manner. If you think so, please tell me why.

I don't share your interpretation. But of course you cannot blame GPLv3 on the patent licensor. I also would be more cautious with loaded language as "free".