"oink - oink" (flap flap) That's the sound of a pig flying....

Joe, let me remind you of Microsoft's obvious motive in any suspected efforts to damage VCSY:

The two VCSY patents act as pivot points for key elements of Microsoft's continually degraded performance toward attempting to field Bill Gates' early XML vision. The vision has yet to see the light of day, although, for years prior to the granting of VCSY's SiteFlash patent 6826744 in November 2004, Microsoft was very energetic in demonstrating what they could do with XML, but still they have shown nothing.
They teach you in detective school that if you happen upon a scene and there is someone in the batch that has motive and opportunity and means, you should look at the dates and events and see if the suspect can be aligned with those. I would say Microsoft has the largest motives (which are the power and reach the 6826744 and 7076521 patents could provide Microsoft over all other manufacturers) and the most obvious opportunities (comprised of work done from at least 2000 to late 2004/early 2005 which could have put Microsoft on top of any other manufacturers were it not for the existence of the 6826744 patent) and certainly the means (which are doubtless legendary and often emphasized by advocates of Microsoft's predatory monopolistic manners).
So, in detective school, they also teach you to make note of such actors and dig into their backgrounds to see if they are in the habit of "offing" weaker associates with which they have a similar motive and opportunity. And, sure enough, Microsoft has numerous events which tag them as someone you wouldn't want to hold your sandwich while you went to make a phone call.
Looks to me like our preliminary indictment of Microsoft has numerous clues and indications which would likely drive a judge to view them with suspicion and a desire to examine. That's Microsoft's fault. Not VCSY's.
VCSY Shareholders are simply interested in the facts and they enjoy digging up factual items regarding Microsoft and apparent connections and allowing others to read.
I happen to be here to make the facts public and entertaining.
It's up to those who read to challenge the juxtaposition of those facts with the image Microsoft itself projects.
It's also up to those desiring to provide Microsoft with an alibi or mitigating facts to rehabilitate Microsoft's suspicious image. So far, nobody wants to take us up on the technological discussion. Nobody can knock out the patent claims. Nobody has offered a smidgen of evidence Microsoft can achieve Bill Gates' XML fantasies and schemes without relying on VCSY's patents 6826744 or 7076521.

So far, Microsoft looks as "innocent" as a jealous woman with a bloody ax.
"Microsoft pales when compared to the integrated oils and producers."
Oh. I see. One other area they teach you to watch for in detective school is other actors who may be willing accomplices ready to provide a misdirection for the suspect's actions such as so many paid shills have done over the years, Nice try, but, last we looked, VCSY patents related to web-platforming and web-applications... a place where Microsoft said they wanted to be from 2000 until 2005. Then, they said they didn't need to be there. Then, once VCSY sent them a cease and desist, they decided they actually did want to be on the web... but they haven't been able to do so.
If Microsoft had been in the oil industry, the patents would not apply so we would have no need to be suspicious. But, thanks for giving us a perfect analogy to describe Microsoft's place in the software industry. Since they "pale when compared" to what you deride as abusive monopolistic actions in the oil industry, you've at least given us renewed confirmation Microsoft is not to be trusted.
And if you don't believe in conspiracies? Read this about how Microsoft treated patents as they dealt with Burst, Eolas and VCSY and I think maybe you'll begin believing that some of the larger companies like 'Microsoft' feel it's their right to take IP if the company is about to go bankrupt or they can be bullied into submission.

Boy Microsoft has got a rude awakening about to happen.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_M/threadview?m=tm&bn=12004&tid=1279647&mid=1279647&tof=1&frt=2

(It's more than obvious-imo)
By: arthurarnsley01
31 Mar 2008, 04:15 AM EDT
Msg. 210442 of 210443
(This msg. is a reply to 210428 by dabbler3248.)

Dabbler3248 - You said:

"Riff, I've thought all along that the two cases are connected (conspiracy) and that Wade came away with much more than money from the CDC/Ross case."

I've been thinking about that all day, but didn't log-on to RB until a few minutes ago and saw your post.

What I've been thinking is that the outcome of the CDC/Ross case has to be fully adjudicated including the current appeal and any other appeal that might result, before VCSY can make a move. In other words, this delay is the explanation for the 1.5 cent share price. I do agree with your comment very strongly, ?and that Wade came away with much more than money from the CDC/Ross case." Obviously there is something going on and it is very suspicious that the New York Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Courts is dragging its feet in rendering a verdict in this case.

When Judge Lowe was in charge of the case 2-6 years ago he delighted in ruling against VCSY and in favor of CDC/Ross for some reason that he apparently felt was valid. And yet VCSY?s lawyer got quick reversals of Lowe?s rulings on appeal. Then Judge Solomon took Lowe?s place and made rumblings that seemed to show disdain for Lowe?s procedures and maybe boded a more favorable outcome for VCSY from then on. Then came the trial, and then the verdict that amounted to approximately $3 million that CDC/Ross would have to pay VCSY. Then Judge Solomon declared she would render a directed verdict (because of the inadequacy of the jury?s award of $3 million). Then there was silence for several months when her directed verdict should have been handled in a week. What happened? Finally her directed verdict was announced and it seemed to me to be no different than the jury?s original paltry award of $3 million. Why the big delay and why no upgrade in the judgement amount? After all, it was Judge Solomon?s decision to issue a directed verdict.

Now here we are back in the never-never land of waiting for the CDC/Ross case to be adjudicated through the New York Appellate Division. (Robert is about to blow up over this and I am not far behind him). This is the Court that, back in Judge Lowe?s day, would overrule his decisions quickly in favor of VCSY. What has happened here? Why is the NY Appellate Division now failing to move?

When the Appellate Division finally does get around to rendering a verdict on this matter, whether in this decade or the next, CDC/Ross will then no doubt wait until the last moment to file another appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. That is the final appeal court in New York but then further appeals could be made through the Federal Court System up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(A few weeks ago I saw where a Microsoft case had just been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Microsoft lost that appeal but they gained eight years or so of using the infringed company?s product for free. Sure, Microsoft had to pay something for back usage etc., but it was negligible in comparison to their eight-year benefit).

What is the NIRO law firm thinking about all this? When they signed on with VCSY to take this case on contingency did they foresee such a lengthy process? Are they looking over their contract with VCSY to find the exit clause?

Here is Niro looking at a date of March 2, 2009 for jury selection to begin on the VCSY vs. Microsoft lawsuit. Are they now beginning to think that there will be several appeals up through the Federal System clear up to the U.S. Supreme Court?

What bearing will the CDC/Ross ?lost in Never-Never land case? have on the outcome of the Microsoft case? Are the Microsoft attorneys so good that there will be some facet of their case that is contingent on the outcome of the CDC/Ross case? Will we have to wait ten years for CDC/Ross to work its way up through the U.S. Supreme Court before the VCSY/Microsoft case can start its way through the appeals process?

Sure, its easy to say Arthur is exaggerating. Let me be the first. ?Arthur is exaggerating.?

This little company VCSY could not possibly have such important patents that the whole judicial system is backing CDC/Ross and Microsoft to prevent VCSY from exercising its lawful right to protect its patents and the righteous compensation for their use. But wait, this has been going on for five years already. I?m not making that up. Judge Solomon changed her tune. I?m not making that up. The New York Appellate Division is dragging its feet whereas once they were fleet-footed. I?m not making that up. The VCSY stock price cannot rise above two cents on a good day. I?m not making that up. There are no news release regarding NOW Solutions and its revenue progress in the Verizon SaaS environment. I?m not making that up. Verizon has tested a 300 mile span of fiber optic cable at speed of 100 Gbps down in Florida a short time ago without mentioning the patented FO technology they are using. I?m not making that up. Verizon has a trans-Pacific cable under construction to be completed later this year that will provide God-like speed and through-put without mentioning the patented FO technology they are using to accomplish that mind-boggling feat. I?m no making that up. VCSY has not released any PR?s this year. I?m not making that up

There are several posters on this board who have been posting on this board for up to eight years using one alias or another. It has become evident that they have been compensated all this time for their daily bashing of VCSY and VCSY stock.

I could go on all night, but I think you get the point.

The following link is to a diagram of the New York Court System so you can look for yourself and see what the appeals process is there. Remember that in New York a Supreme Court is a trial court and not an appeals court. The VCSY vs. CDC/Ross lawsuits were tried in a New York Supreme Court.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/structure.shtml

Arthur

If Microsoft didn't relinquish intellectual property rights in writing, then why is this going to pass?

Because they made a "pledge" , "promise", "gee trust us", "its all good", "aw c'mon ", "really, were not kidding". Uh huh

If Microsoft really did made a pledge, then let them put it in writing and have them be legally bound by it. Otherwise shelve the whole deal.

Hey Ralph, The OSP (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx) is in writing and is a legally binding. Fully releasing the IP for anything (instead of just people implementing the spec) might be a way to win some PR, but wouldn't really change anything.

I don't envy any journalist trying to write about OOXML because of the amount of false stories and FUD flying around ontop of a infamiliarity with the IP structure Microsoft has been erecting over the last few years/months. Joe's comment around OOXML licencing seems to imply that the mass market products CNS for open source and non-commercial usage with RAND for commercial usage is what applies instead of the OSP.

What I do have to admit is that PR seems to be the name of the game at this point. Over the last year of the standarization process I've seen a very high level of ignorance in the comments people leave around the web on this issue. Having very light coverage in the technical press and highly biased inaccurate coverage from blogs has been a sad combo.

Joe says; "Microsoft exerted great will to get the votes (tactics aren't the topic of this post)."
----------------------------------------------------
Rightly so Joe, but that doesn't stop me from discussing "the Tactics."

Simply put, this company has a lot of money and "will," to apply pressure, to buy, lie, steal, connive, and otherwise, influence, to get the needed votes.

However, the corruption of the standards voting process should be another topic that needs to be closely to be put under the microscope by antitrust regulators, the EU, and governments around the world. Bring out the fines, EU. Its time to break up this badly behaving predatory monopoly, into many tiny pieces, once and for all.

Joe said:

"Circling back to the starting topic: Microsoft's interoperability and so-called "standards" objectives are suspect. Interoperability seems to be more about Microsoft benefits first before those for customers or partners. Somebody at Microsoft will argue that OOXML backward compatibility with the aging Office binary file formats is a huge customer benefit."

I believe the OOXML standard has nothing to do with "Interoperability". It has more to do with not loosing clients who ask for a document standard to save their info with. They will then go to the heads of government and companies and brainwash them into believing they are actually using a standard based format. Technically they are (ISO approved one), but in truth Microsoft isn't holding a standard even with itself.

The same elements in a Word document are not represented by the same tags in a Power Point document. Thus by using OOXML not only do you have to develop a mapping between legacy formats (old Office stuff), but you also have to develop a mapping strategy between content in the same format (XML). Take for example the following text "The cow jumped over the moon". I made a text document and a presentation out of that string. One copy in Open Office using ODF and one with Office 2007 using OOXML. (I have removed the style tags for simplicity)

The text in the Writer (Open Office Word equivalent) shows up like this:

The
cow
jumped over the

moon

The same text in a bullet slide in Impress (Open Office Power Point equivalent) shows up like this:

The
cow
jumped over the

moon

Pretty similar if you ask me. I even embedded the text as a simple text overlay in the slide (not as bulleted text). The entry looks something like:

And going to look into the ./Object 1 data we have:

The
cow
jumped over the

moon

Gosh!!! Just like in Writer! Must have been because its embedded.

Now lets try it out with Office 2007. The text in Word:

-
-



-
The

-
-



cow

-
-




jumped over the

-
-




-
moon

Argghhhhh!!!! Now the same in Power Point:

-

The

-



-

cow

-



-
-
-



jumped

-
-
-





-
-
-



over

-
-
-





-
-
-



the

-
-
-





-

moon



-

The embedded text in the Power Point slide is in a:

-




-
-

Section and is described as follows:

-



-
-

The

-



-

cow

-



-
-
-



jumped

-
-
-





-
-
-



over

-
-
-





-
-
-



the

-
-
-





-

moon

This clarifies the issue with OOXML beyond all possible zealotry, camping, shilling or in any way unsupported IT fanaticism. OOXML is sloppy!! Period. While ODF uses the same tag "" to enclose text in all applications, OOXML uses two different tags. OOXML also takes more to represent the same. Notice how each word in OOXML has formatting. Not only is the formatting repeated because OOXML in Office 2007 fails to use styles, it is repeated in every word. Even if the word is exactly like the one next to it.

The string "jumped over the" has the same style and is properly represented in ODF:

jumped over the

Word gets it right:

-
-




jumped over the

With a few more characters, but nothing like Power Point.

-
-



jumped

-
-
-





-
-
-



over

-
-
-





-
-
-



the

-
-
-





-

This is just ridiculous. So if you have a hard time convincing someone that OOXML is bad, just show them this. If they're management ask them if they're willing to pay up for the added implementation cost of handling formats which are not compatible within the same application set (Office 2007). While ODF only requires you to code once with Office you have to code two different ways of opening files and then some more to "copy paste content" between xml storage.

Ups, sorry bout the double post. It seems the board software took out the important stuff. Here it is again with the tag's open and close characters replaced with pipes.

Joe said:

"Circling back to the starting topic: Microsoft's interoperability and so-called "standards" objectives are suspect. Interoperability seems to be more about Microsoft benefits first before those for customers or partners. Somebody at Microsoft will argue that OOXML backward compatibility with the aging Office binary file formats is a huge customer benefit."

I believe the OOXML standard has nothing to do with "Interoperability". It has more to do with not loosing clients who ask for a document standard to save their info with. They will then go to the heads of government and companies and brainwash them into believing they are actually using a standard based format. Technically they are (ISO approved one), but in truth Microsoft isn't holding a standard even with itself.

The same elements in a Word document are not represented by the same tags in a Power Point document. Thus by using OOXML not only do you have to develop a mapping between legacy formats (old Office stuff), but you also have to develop a mapping strategy between content in the same format (XML). Take for example the following text "The cow jumped over the moon". I made a text document and a presentation out of that string. One copy in Open Office using ODF and one with Office 2007 using OOXML. (I have removed the style tags for simplicity)

The text in the Writer (Open Office Word equivalent) shows up like this:

|text:p text:style-name="Standard"|
The
|text:span text:style-name="T1"|cow|/text:span|
|text:span text:style-name="T3"|jumped over the|/text:span|
|text:span text:style-name="T2" /|
moon
|/text:p|

The same text in a bullet slide in Impress (Open Office Power Point equivalent) shows up like this:

|text:p text:style-name="P1"|
|text:span text:style-name="T1"|The|/text:span|
|text:span text:style-name="T2"|cow|/text:span|
|text:span text:style-name="T3"|jumped over the|/text:span|
|text:span text:style-name="T4" /|
|text:span text:style-name="T5"|moon|/text:span|
|/text:p|

Pretty similar if you ask me. I even embedded the text as a simple text overlay in the slide (not as bulleted text). The entry looks something like:

|draw:object xlink:href="./Object 1" xlink:type="simple" xlink:show="embed" xlink:actuate="onLoad" /|

And going to look into the ./Object 1 data we have:

|text:p text:style-name="Standard"|
The
|text:span text:style-name="T1"|cow|/text:span|
|text:span text:style-name="T3"|jumped over the|/text:span|
|text:span text:style-name="T2" /|
moon
|/text:p|

Gosh!!! Just like in Writer! Must have been because its embedded.

Now lets try it out with Office 2007. The text in Word:

- |w:p w:rsidR="008A5B24" w:rsidRDefault="008A5B24" w:rsidP="008A5B24"|
- |w:pPr|
|w:pStyle w:val="NormalWeb" /|
|w:spacing w:after="0" /|
|/w:pPr|
- |w:r|
|w:t xml:space="preserve"|The|/w:t|
|/w:r|
- |w:r|
- |w:rPr|
|w:b /|
|w:bCs /|
|/w:rPr|
|w:t xml:space="preserve"|cow|/w:t|
|/w:r|
- |w:r|
- |w:rPr|
|w:b /|
|w:bCs /|
|w:color w:val="FF0000" /|
|/w:rPr|
|w:t|jumped over the|/w:t|
|/w:r|
- |w:r|
- |w:rPr|
|w:color w:val="FF0000" /|
|/w:rPr|
|w:t xml:space="preserve"||/w:t|
|/w:r|
- |w:r|
|w:t|moon|/w:t|
|/w:r|
|/w:p|

Argghhhhh!!!! Now the same in Power Point:

|a:p|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t|The|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t|cow|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|jumped|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|over|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|the|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t|moon|/a:t|
|/a:r|
|a:endParaRPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" smtClean="0" /|
|/a:p|
- |a:p|

The embedded text in the Power Point slide is in a:

|p:sp|
- |p:nvSpPr|
|p:cNvPr id="6" name="5 Rectángulo" /|
|p:cNvSpPr /|
|p:nvPr /|
|/p:nvSpPr|
- |p:spPr|
- |a:xfrm|
|a:off x="2963835" y="3244334" /|
|a:ext cx="3216330" cy="369332" /|
|/a:xfrm|

Section and is described as follows:

|p:txBody|
- |a:bodyPr wrap="none"|
|a:spAutoFit /|
|/a:bodyPr|
|a:lstStyle /|
- |a:p|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t|The|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t|cow|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|jumped|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|over|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|the|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
|a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0" /|
|a:t|moon|/a:t|
|/a:r|
|a:endParaRPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" /|
|/a:p|
|/p:txBody|

This clarifies the issue with OOXML beyond all possible zealotry, camping, shilling or in any way unsupported IT fanaticism. OOXML is sloppy!! Period. While ODF uses the same tag "|text:span|" to enclose text in all applications, OOXML uses two different tags. OOXML also takes more to represent the same. Notice how each word in OOXML has formatting. Not only is the formatting repeated because OOXML in Office 2007 fails to use styles, it is repeated in every word. Even if the word is exactly like the one next to it.

The string "jumped over the" has the same style and is properly represented in ODF:

|text:span text:style-name="T3"|jumped over the|/text:span|

Word gets it right:

- |w:r|
- |w:rPr|
|w:b /|
|w:bCs /|
|w:color w:val="FF0000" /|
|/w:rPr|
|w:t|jumped over the|/w:t|
|/w:r|

With a few more characters, but nothing like Power Point.

|a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|jumped|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|over|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" b="1" dirty="0" err="1" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t|the|/a:t|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|
- |a:rPr lang="es-ES" dirty="0" smtClean="0"|
- |a:solidFill|
|a:srgbClr val="FF0000" /|
|/a:solidFill|
|/a:rPr|
|a:t /|
|/a:r|
- |a:r|

This is just ridiculous. So if you have a hard time convincing someone that OOXML is bad, just show them this. If they're management ask them if they're willing to pay up for the added implementation cost of handling formats which are not compatible within the same application set (Office 2007). While ODF only requires you to code once with Office you have to code two different ways of opening files and then some more to "copy paste content" between xml storage.

Is MS changing?..
-------------
OOXML Vote: Irregularities in Germany & Croatia and a Call for an Investigation of Norway
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2008032913190768
If Microsoft gets this OOXML format "approved", it will be by irregularities in the voting, it seems. Here's more on what happened in Germany and a report on what is being called a scandal in Norway. And another odd process in Croatia.

If you can read German, here's the story on what happened there. For those who can't, when they went to vote, they were not allowed to vote disapprove, so the choice was to approve or to abstain. It was a tie, 6:6, which means no consensus. So under the rules I've read, that would have meant that they should send a vote of Abstain.

But surprise, surprise!! A solution helpful to Microsoft: the representative from DIN decided to cast a vote, which isn't the process. DIN isn't supposed to vote, because it's supposed to advise. But this, they rationalized, was a vote not about whether to accept OOXML on the basis of *technical* issues, but whether to accept the approval suggestion of the technical committee. So DIN voted to accept DIN's suggestion. Hence Germany ends up in the Approve column. I know. No doubt there will be objections filed.
-

The proponents of open standards are shocked over the incompetence and procedural errors made in Standards Norway and accuse the organization of not taking into account national interest.

While Shahzad Rand and Microsoft worry themselves about whether OOXML is recommended by Standards Norway, resistors are up in arms over Friday's decision. CTO Håkon Wium Lie at Opera Software, who has worked for a number of years with the Internet and standards is deeply disturbed. "This is a scandal! I am shocked. I am speechless. 21 members of the committee say no, while MS manages to win through its position anyway. It is incomprehensible," says Wium Lie angrily."
----------------
No, Ms is not changing...Maybe it will be approved
but, the world's eyes are looking to Ms.
I think if Ms win dirtily, it could be very dangerous for Ms.

Joe, your challenge is good. And you can rest assured Micro$oft will never step up as long as Bill and Ballmer are in control.

The OOXML vote is a grand display of how low these two miscreants will take Micro$oft to satisfy corporate greed. This is a dark time for standards bodies. The process has been corrupted and it has been severely wounded, perhaps fatally.

There should be a law against what Micro$oft has done. Bill and Ballmer belong in jail.

Norway asks to suspend its 'Yes' vote on OOXML
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/31/Norway-asks-to-suspend-its-Yes-vote-on-OOXML_1.html
Due to 'serious irregularities,' Norway's OOXML vote could be suspended pending an investigation, adding further intrigue to the ongoing standards debate

Norway's protest likely means that the debate over OOXML won't end when the ISO announces the results of the final vote.

"Things are getting weirder and weirder," said Andrew Updegrove, a supporter of ODF, a rival to OOXML, and an open-source and open-standards attorney with Gesmer Updegrove in Boston. "I think OOXML is going to be in the news for a while."

@Marco,

Most likely the power and money of Microsoft will win the OOXML as a standard. It will of course, never really be a standard, but will help MS sell Office to the gullible.

But there is a larger issue that Marco points out with the Norway vote for Microsoft. The "irregularities" of the votes, may become a far larger issue than the standard issue. Already the EU is looking into the Polish voting. And its the EU that has the really big stick to beat on MS. This could be the start of the much bigger problem looming for MS. And that is, perhaps, the "silver lining" to the standards story.

Yes, Chips really Ms could avoid has bad advertising ,for that of Evil Empire...But you know, they will never learn.