OOXML : My Crystal Ball is Cloudy
Par Bernard Golden, Navica Software (en anglais)
My December newsletter confidently predicted that OOXML, Microsoft's initiative to get its proprietary document format accepted as an ISO international standard, would fail. After all, with the Microsoft activities exposed as sailing very near the wind, and the further identification of technical shortcomings in the specification itself, it seemed to me that the March vote would be likely to be even less positive regarding an OOXML adoption.
It seems, though, that Microsoft is going to be able to squeeze out a victory; a tribute, I guess, to backroom deals and cupidity.
One must ask: what will Microsoft win? This question was brought to my mind at last week's OSBC conference where its head lawyer, Brad Smith, came and spoke in a keynote panel. A question posed to Smith several times regarding Microsoft's repeated insistence on forcing licensing upon companies wishing to interoperate with Microsoft products (remember, Microsoft characterizes this patent-based licensing as "building bridges to the open source community") was this: "The actual revenue Microsoft attains through this licensing activity is very small in comparison to its overall revenues - so why does Microsoft bother?" Of course, when one considers the top management attention used in this low payoff licensing activity, the financial pointlessness of pursuing it becomes even clearer.
Smith's response, stated several times, was along the lines of "We believe our intellectual property has value and we should be compensated for its use." Most observers regarded this rejoinder as a smokescreen, a cover up for some imagined even-more-nefarious Microsoft motive. I took a different view. I think Smith was fairly presenting Microsoft's position: It created the IP and if other people want to interoperate with Microsoft's products, they should pay for the privilege - it's only right. This attitude is so embedded in Microsoft's zeitgeist that it is willing to pursue it well beyond the bounds of economic rationality; in defense of the principle, Microsoft is willing to spend a dollar to gain a penny.
"It created the IP and if other people want to interoperate with Microsoft's products, they should pay for the privilege - it's only right. This attitude is so embedded in Microsoft's zeitgeist that it is willing to pursue it well beyond the bounds of economic rationality..."
However, as I later observed to someone, that position only holds water when the licensor has the upper hand when the licensor's products hold the dominant position and other products must interoperate if they wish to gain customer acceptance. If there is a critical mass of those other products, all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak: it would be in Microsoft's interests to get its products able to interoperate with the others; in fact, failing to offer good interoperability with those products would handicap the acceptance and adoption of Microsoft's products.
That got me to thinking about what the (expected) victory of OOXML would mean. It's true that Microsoft dominates the desktop office market and therefore dominates the resulting document formats. When I look at the OOXML votes, they seem to break down along a developed/developing nation split, with the former falling into line with Microsoft's desires (to be expected for sure, since there is more money at stake in a developed market and therefore more cupidity on tap) and the latter hewing to rejecting OOXML.
"Simply put, they don't want their computing future dictated (and that is what OOXML is, notwithstanding the ISO standard fig leaf) by an American company."
My speculation as to the motive for the developing nations taking this position is that they are adopting it for sovereignty reasons. Simply put, they don't want their computing future dictated (and that is what OOXML is, notwithstanding the ISO standard fig leaf) by an American company.
These nations will insist on using ODF. And, while the developed world currently represents the vast majority of computing use, the future is all with the developing world. Which calls into question the assumption that if the developed world uses OOXML, it will be forced onto everyone else. Remember, the power of commercial relationship lies with whoever represents the majority of the market, as the licensing discussion noted. If a couple of billion people in the developing world insist on using ODF, everyone else is likely to find it incumbent upon them to find a way to communicate with them. So Microsoft's OOXML initiative may end up, in the long run, looking like a Pyrrhic victory. We'll see. My crystal ball may just clear up some day.
