SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When the UK government announced plans to shift to the .odf Open Document Format, and away from Microsoft's proprietary .doc and .docx formats, Microsoft threatened to move its research facilities out of the UK.
The prime minister's director of strategy at the time, Steve Hilton, said that "Microsoft phoned Conservative MPs with Microsoft R&D facilities in their constituencies and said we will close them down in your constituencies if this goes through" "We just resisted. You have to be brave," Hilton said.
Although I am not a great lover of Microsoft, I'm not sure that this is any different than many other companies who will try to protect their profits - and, arguably, the jobs of their employees - when they can see the potential for the loss of business. But perhaps other companies are a little more subtle - especially when it is obvious that official papers will one day become public knowledge.
[Editor's Comment: This submission has been significantly edited - comment is not attributable to sigma]
[Editor's Comment: Please see public apology regarding this story.]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sigma on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:29AM
Please note that I didn't write that paragraph, and consider it to be apologist twaddle. This is NOT the same as many other companies protecting jobs and profits, it is Microsoft attempting to force the government to reduce interoperability with the people the government is supposed to be serving.
Any company behaving like this should be eliminated from government tenders and contracts immediately.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:39AM
It might be different if MICROS~1's "standards" were actual standards.
They aren't even "standard" from 1 version of their own product to the next.
The DOCX "standard" is far from an actual standard.
What it is is 6000 pages of twaddle.[1]
It's not a specification; its an encrypted interoffice memo among Microsofties. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
What Redmond produces is closed and proprietary.
Any claims otherwise are hogwash.
[1] OpenDocument Format does it in about a fourth of that--and produces an actual usable spec.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:44AM
Perhaps the UK should tax MS say 200% of the cost they are paying for their proprietary software.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by anubi on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:20AM
I would not punitively tax Microsoft for selling proprietary protocols...
But I would hold them responsible for what their proprietary software does. I would tell them if they expected their copyrights, patents, and digital locks to be respected, they would also assume full responsibility for what their software does "in secret" behind the law-abiding and patent-respecting user's back or in his machine.
Did he open a document to read it, only to be infected with malware? That would not happen if a company knew they are exposing themselves to liability if they release bad code.
We sure hold car-makers to a high standard. How would we handle it if wheels came off of cars as easily as one gets infected with malware on the web - even while using supposedly "idiot-proof" "walled gardens".
I hold that if I bought a car, and a wheel came off, I have full rights to inspect the lug nuts, regardless of any "service agreements" I may have with the car manufacturer.
In the digital world, I get the idea a helluva lotta lug nuts aren't even installed, while the manufacturer of it relies on handshakes with lawmakers to keep customers from doing their own inspections.
Yes, that means even if Microsoft puts a back door in at GCHQ's request, and that back door gets misused, Microsoft is on the hook for any affected user bringing his machine to the shop to have his machine disinfected.
If Microsoft wants to play hardball, the government can play pretty well at that game, as anyone who has ever "fought city hall" can attest to.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cafebabe on Saturday May 23 2015, @05:22AM
Any convicted monopolist should be eliminated from government tenders and contracts immediately.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @10:54AM
In which UK court were they convicted?
If you think that the UK should also respect convictions from other countries - and I'm not arguing one way or another here - what about those convicted by governments and states that you do not support? Should those convicted in various middle-eastern states of apostasy, or of bringing shame upon one's family, also be treated in the same shameful way in the UK? How about those found guilty of certain crimes in China, Tibet or Myanmar? Or is it just big business that should be held to a double standard?
Currently, the UK is facing a referendum on staying in the European Union or leaving in the next few years. Various companies are making it clear that, should the UK opt to leave, they would take their businesses elsewhere. In what way is that different from Microsoft's actions? I do not support what Microsoft did, but we are criticising one specific company for something that many companies are 'guilty' of. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft should, IMHO, be prevented from bidding for the contracts because their 'standards' aren't open, or even a standard. Some versions of Microsoft software cannot open files created by later versions of the same program, nor can other companies always produce working software based entirely and solely on the specifications - hardly something that I would define as being a standard. But that is not the same as the thrust of TFA.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:26PM
Surely a conviction anywhere in the EU should be counted in the U.K.
Discounting countries that have vastly different and incompatible standards of criminality, MS is still a three time loser such that if it was a person, the only employment it could find would involve either a mop and a bucket or "want fries with that?".
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:49PM
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:33PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday May 23 2015, @09:02PM
UK membership in the EU is largely irrelevant to the situation. As an American, if someone with 3 convictions for financial crimes in the various courts of the EU (including the UK) wanted to be my accountant, the answer would be a very loud NO.
(Score: 1) by McD on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:20PM
I likewise had a submission edited a bit last week, and now that I think about it, I think I see what bugged me at the time.
Minor edits, spelling corrections, and such, are no problem and to be expected.
But I think soylent editors should adhere to a policy of not putting words in the submitter's mouth - if they want to add their own two cents (a practice whose merits are also open to debate, but setting that aside) they should at least be clearly identifiable as coming from someone other than the submitter.
That was retroactively done here, it looks like, but it should be policy. A simple horizontal rule beneath the submission, with the editors addition below that, would probably suffice.
(Score: 2) by sigma on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:53PM
I think soylent editors should adhere to a policy of not putting words in the submitter's mouth
Agreed, absolutely.
"if they want to add their own two cents (a practice whose merits are also open to debate, but setting that aside)" "A simple horizontal rule beneath the submission, with the editors addition below that, would probably suffice."
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here. If the editors want to add their own two cents, they can respond inline like the rest of us. Their role here is to be responsible, not privileged.
The stories we submit are a reflection of our enthusiasms and beliefs, the tone and character of those posts is as much part of the submitter's story as the actual content. I've been fighting for open file, data, and protocol standards since the '80s. The value to the world of fully interoperable cross-platforms is both obvious and immense, but at every stage where it became likely or possible, one company - Microsoft - stepped up to sabotage the effort. For thirty years they've done that in order to maintain their profit and control over the computing world, but they've cost the world's businesses and individuals far more than even the monopoly rents they've they've raked in as a result.
Their business model is the equivalent of a street thief wrecking a $500 dollar car dashboard to steal a $50 radio. So yes, I'm passionate about it, and when I see my submission being edited to appease those thugs. like you, I'm annoyed.
The community is what makes sites like SN and Slashdot before it, an eclectic community with a wide range of opinions, styles and passions will always be more active and interesting than a bland monoculture. SN's editors should embrace and encourage that diversity, not sabotage it to appease some corporate arseholes.
If any of my postings are edited again, I'm gone. I'm sure there'll be plenty who'll say "good riddance", but if you read my submitting and posting history, you'll see I've been a solid contributor here.
(Score: 2) by sigma on Saturday May 23 2015, @02:08PM
I've submitted this as a story.
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=7478 [soylentnews.org]
I think it needs to be discussed and clarified before too much more damage is done.