Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday May 22 2015, @11:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the threatened-or-lobbying? dept.

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.]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:38AM

    by BK (4868) on Saturday May 23 2015, @11:38AM (#186830)

    The problem with using proprietary formats for government business is that it essentially creates a government-supported monopoly.

    I wouldn't dare to disagree, especially with the way moderation works around here.

    But open formats, when one is supported, or more supported, by a particular vendor or product, still represent the government picking winners and losers in the market-place. ODF is only as universal as vendor support. Would you propose to mandate that?

    When the Germans come up with ODFA, must that also be supported? ODFR for the Russians? ODFL for the Liechtensteiners? In the end, this just creates another monopoly by creating barriers to entry.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @05:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @05:10PM (#186901)

    No. With open standards, anyone can make software that supports them. I'd go even farther and say that the government shouldn't use proprietary software at all. The government should promote transparency and education, and proprietary software spits on both of those things.

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:30PM

      by BK (4868) on Saturday May 23 2015, @07:30PM (#186940)

      ...the government shouldn't use proprietary software at all.

      Fine. Agreed even.

      But if this is truly right, sell it that way. If the politicians who must support such a measure understand and support its substance, they'll be able to correctly balance it with the job prospects of their constituents. But if they think they are supporting a nationalist agenda (and so don't really understand the issue the issue you are advocating), they will be vulnerable to persuasion when they realize that the national issue isn't so clear cut and that local jobs are at stake.

      The alleged persuasion by MS could only work if the open standards folks lied first in the selling.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.