Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It seems like this whole "the spec is underspecified in small ways" 
> complaining is just really "we don't want MS to have a standard here 
> because the point was to keep people from using MS software."

  The whole idea with a standardized open format is the same as with
any other standard: That anyone can make a compatible implementation
of that standard. This is good for fair competition and disallows
monopolies.

  What Microsoft is trying to do is a PR stunt: "Hey, we support open
standards, we are the good guys." They want to give a positive image
of themselves. If the "standard" is, however, only implementable by
Microsoft, this kind of PR is mischievous. On the outside they look
like they are advocating open standards and fair competition, but in
reality they are only strengthening their own monopoly. They are also
abusing the standardization system to strengthen their own monopoly,
which is the exact opposite of what standardization is for.

  If their format becomes standardized that's a great asset. They can
go to governments and companies and say: "This is *standard*. You should
use this. ISO standardization is a guarantee for quality. And, you see,
our programs are the only ones which fully implement this standard, and
thus you should use our programs and not those other programs which only
implement it partially."

  That's *not* the purpose of standards. That's the exact opposite of what
standards are for. Standards are not a tool to promote monopolies.

  That's what people are complaining about.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message