Good Job Roy
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Mar 29, 2008 10:22 AM EDT |
While I publicly criticize you when you have a tinfoil beanie screwed tight on to your head, I feel I should also compliment you when you crank out an excellent piece. You present a strong case in this article, strong enough where it would be nice to see if someone in the process has the fortitude to offer up a rebuttal. More writing like this and less of the other you could be considered a strong counterweight to the paid mouthpieces. I know I said much the same on boycottnovell, but a well done here seemed as appropriate. More real writing please. |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2008 10:41 AM EDT |
Out of curiosity, what case did he make? So far as I can tell, his case is that Microsoft is accused of not being sufficiently forthcoming with interoperability information, so they should not be allowed to create a standard that would solve that problem. Again -- that presumes that an OOXML standard would not be the present pile of crap, but one that could actually function, and one that Microsoft would follow. |
| azerthoth Mar 29, 2008 10:58 AM EDT |
He made 2 points, 1: that accepting OOXML in any form of standard is contrary to WTO (which is on the list of things that should not be) and 2: while there are investigations going on into the severe irregularities of the processes being (ab)used that proceeding with the process is suspect and perhaps may be opening the ISO to having one of their decision overturned by court order. |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2008 11:42 AM EDT |
Ummm.... Not exactly. 1. The World Trade Organization is, umm, an Organization, not statute or treaty, etc. It is absolutely true that the WTO prefers single standards. So do we all. There is, however, a big difference between saying you shouldn't have different or overlapping standards and saying that you can't. Most reasonable people agree that having two standards is not to be preferred. However, Microsoft Office is the world's dominant desktop software and it will not lose that position overnight. So, the real choices are to have an official standard that nobody follows and a non-standard that most people use but which locks out competition. 2. I completely missed that. I'm old and I'm tired, so it could have squeezed between my 2 active brain cells. What I saw was a discussion of antitrust actions, not actions regarding to corruption of the ISO process. Has the article changed or did I really just miss it? A quote would be most appreciated. |
| azerthoth Mar 29, 2008 12:09 PM EDT |
It was inferred, however not veiled all that deeply. If during the course of the multiple investigations currently ongoing around this issue if the courts find cause to invalidate some votes or processes it stands to reason that at some point they will have invalidated either through individual or collective action the entire basis for the process under which the standard was adopted. As Roy did point out, it may well be in the ISO's best interest to allow the investigations to take place first before continuing. Having a standard overturned in the courts would put a serious dent into the validity or perceived validity of any future ISO standard. |
| jdixon Mar 29, 2008 12:17 PM EDT |
> Having a standard overturned in the courts would put a serious dent into the validity or perceived validity of any future ISO standard. Passing the proposed OOXML standard would do even more harm to ISO's credibility. The process to date hasn't even begun to look at the numerous problems with the proposed standard. If Microsoft demonstrates that they can buy an ISO standard in spite of that, it effectively destroys ISO's credibility as a standards organization. |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2008 1:30 PM EDT |
What courts would overturn ISO standards? What courts have jurisdiction over that? |
| azerthoth Mar 29, 2008 2:05 PM EDT |
Dino, I think I will answer that like I do when I'm doing support sometimes. Rethink the question you asked and ask individual questions. I think you will find that the question should have been not which court does, but which courts dont. |
| dinotrac Mar 29, 2008 8:12 PM EDT |
azerthoth - No, the question is which courts do. A court has to have jurisdiction over a dispute and over the parties to a dispute. What courts have the jurisdiction to overturn an ISO standard? No courts in the US. Which courts? |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2008 6:45 AM EDT |
> What courts have the jurisdiction to overturn an ISO standard? Any court which claims jurisdiction and isn't overturned by a higher court. How many times just in recent years have we seen courts claim jurisdiction they previously did not have? |
| dinotrac Mar 30, 2008 8:03 AM EDT |
Ummm --- It happens. The problem to which I refer, however, is that somebody is making claims about ISO standards getting overturned in court. The right questions are: 1. Who has standing to sue? To sue, somebody needs to establish that they -- not somebody else, and not some hypothetical person who might one day have a problem -- have been affected adversely in a way that breaks the law . That's a little tough for me, but I can imagine it. The difficulty in this case is that somebody would have to claim that they were damaged because of the OOXML standard, and that the standard wouldn't exist if the proper procedures had been followed. For that to be the case, somebody needs to be pushing an ODF solution. My suspicion as to what really happens after that, however, is that the case gets thrown out because: 1) The losing solution will be inadequate. That's pretty easy to guarantee because the procurement folks write the specs and do the evaluations. 2) ISO standards are, at some point, voluntary. Organizations that use them as the basis for procurements choose to do so and they have that right. 3) Odd as it may seem, refusing to acknowledge and official standard could be viewed as anti-competitive and contrary to public policy. As to jurisdication -- I think I've been looking at this from the wrong end, but looking the other way doesn't seem to help. I could see a court striking down requirements to follow ISO standards. In fact, I know that happens alread |
| azerthoth Mar 30, 2008 10:08 AM EDT |
Thank you jd, you saw where I was pointing. |
| dinotrac Mar 30, 2008 11:30 AM EDT |
Azerthoth - If that's where you were pointing, then you weren't pointing anywhere. Jurisdiction is all about a court's right to hear a dispute. It tends to be resolved quickly because the same things that interfere with a court's right to hear a dispute also interfere with a court's ability to enforce it's orders. In short, courts don't like to waste time where they have no jurisdiction. So -- here's the challenge for you and jd : How many times HAVE you actually heard courts claim jurisdiction they didn't have, hmmmmm? |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2008 4:12 PM EDT |
> How many times HAVE you actually heard courts claim jurisdiction they didn't have, hmmmmm? At least half a dozen in the past few years, off the top of my head. I'd have to research the details, and that's not going to happen with everything else going on right now. |
| dinotrac Mar 30, 2008 5:26 PM EDT |
jdixon -- I'd be interested to hear about them. There are occasions when jurisdiction is in question, and the internet has helped to bring those upon us. Usually the problem is not a court taking jurisdiction per se. In the US, at least, complaints are brought to the court. The plaintiff will allege that the court does have jurisdiction, and, most of the time, the basis for jurisdiction is pretty plain. In our system, as in the British system, the job of refuting jurisdiction lies with the defendant. The court is able, on its own accord, to dismiss a case on jurisdictional grounds, but that's not the way it ordinarily works. The plaintiff alleges jurisdiction, and, in the absence of refuting evidence by the defendant, jurisdiction is taken. In that case, the court actually acquires jurisdiction because the defendant has acquiesced to it. |
| jdixon Mar 30, 2008 6:16 PM EDT |
> In that case, the court actually acquires jurisdiction because the defendant has acquiesced to it. Or, not being in the courts jurisdiction, never attended the case (or perhaps was never even notified). I believe at least two of the cases I'm thinking of were brought at the International Court of Justice (which, from memory) the US doesn't recognize, so they're not your normal court cases. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 30, 2008 8:56 PM EDT |
[quote]Or, not being in the courts jurisdiction, never attended the case (or perhaps was never even notified).[/qoute] The Spamhaus case comes to mind. |
| flufferbeer Mar 30, 2008 10:52 PM EDT |
I also learned something from Roy's article. Good points, intellectual honesty (I think) and nice use of supporting references without overdoing it like some I read. I'd sense that ISO will not be so easy to bring down over its mishandling of the OOXML voting and that M$ will instead get out of its negative entanglements here one way or another. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 12:58 AM EDT |
>I'd sense that ISO will not be so easy to bring down I'm less sure about that, but courts aren't the most likely mechanism. A standards body relies in large measure on its moral authority -- assorted individuals and organizations recognize that the body has a charter to issue standards and that something about the process makes those standards worth paying attention to. The body might be damaged, or the standard might simply wither and die. Ever hear of CMIP? It was supposed to be the "real" network management protocol..SNMP was developed as a stopgap. Except that, SNMP got implemented and CMIP was too complex and resource intense. I don't know if anyone -- even Microsoft -- will implement OOXML. What I think will be fun, though, in the case of contracts requiring an OSI standard, is compliance offers testing Microsoft software for compliance with the standards it put forth. Should be good for a giggle. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 31, 2008 1:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:I don't know if anyone -- even Microsoft -- will implement OOXML. They already have. They have made great care during the BRM that whatever crap is currently emitted by Office 2007 can still be called OOXML. It uses the parts marked as "Deprecated" and it doesn't contain everything in the spec, but it's OOXML allright. Technically. If you squint a bit. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 1:52 AM EDT |
>They have made great care during the BRM that whatever cr@p is currently emitted by Office 2007 can still be called OOXML Maybe there's some value there, but, my understanding is that OOXML allows for elements that are, essentially, "Here's junk I threw in that you don't need to know about so screw you, pal." |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 31, 2008 5:38 AM EDT |
That's right. As I argued in my response to Patrick Durusau in point two (the one you didn't like) the goal is simply to make sure MS-Office 2007 can bid for procurements in governments that require an ISO standard. That's why they could not remove all that junk at the BRM. Office 2007 generates that junk so it had to be in the standard. |
| jdixon Mar 31, 2008 7:57 AM EDT |
> The Spamhaus case comes to mind. I believe that's one of the ones I was remembering of, yes. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 9:25 AM EDT |
jdixon - Yes. The internet creates a lot of jurisdictional problems. The big problem is this: Somebody in the UK can break the law in the US. Not just the law OF the US, but the law IN the US. So.... The spammer can indeed come under US jurisdiction. It's less clear to me how that threads up to ICANN, except that ICANN also has contractual relationships with registrars in the US and, in fact, has its own dispute-handling system (and a nasty, business-biased one a that) in the United States. AND -- ultimately, it is ICANN that grants and pulls the names. It will be interesting to follow. In the case of ISO standards, I don't see a similar chain to the ISO. I do see the potential for suits against organizations who require ISO standards, but I'm not sure how far those can go, because organizations have the right to do that, even if the standards are monkey turds. Surely some lawyers will look for cracks to drive stakes into. |
| jdixon Mar 31, 2008 9:46 AM EDT |
> The internet creates a lot of jurisdictional problems. Yes, but our current system makes it more complicated than it needs to be. The servers should be under the jurisdiction of the government where they're located. The individual users should be under the authority of the government where they're located. A UK gambling business should not be considered to have broken US law because a US citizen accessed it. > In the case of ISO standards, I don't see a similar chain to the ISO. Neither do I, but I'm confident someone will try to find a way. And if enough try, someone will. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 9:51 AM EDT |
jd - It gets tricky, though. For example, if somebody just puts up a site that somebody scans, no problem. If they actively solicit business in the US -- why should they not come under US jurisdiction, especially as a session is, essentially, a big old international handshake -- with one end over here. Great fun while the world works it out. |
| jdixon Mar 31, 2008 11:29 AM EDT |
> If they actively solicit business in the US -- why should they not come under US jurisdiction. But advertising an illegal activity is already a crime. So how will they solicit business? Ads on US sites and with US advertisers would be within US jurisdiction, and could be prosecuted. Ads on other sites outside the US are still out of US jurisdiction. The US person engaging in the illegal activity can always be prosecuted. Of course, the WTO has already ruled that the US laws banning gambling violate previously existing trade agreements, which makes things even more interesting. > Great fun while the world works it out. If you're not one of the people being arrested and thrown in jail, I agree. If you are, fun might not be quite the right word. :( This isn't just an international problem. I've seen at least a couple of equivalent cases at the state level, where sites (usually pornography) which are considered legal in the area they're located are ruled by a court in another state to violate that state's law and tried to impose penalties, even though neither the servers nor the owners/operators are within their jurisdiction. In a completely unrelated but equally irritating matter concerning jurisdiction, WV just added a line for their "use tax", which is a blatantly unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce, to their state income tax form. Since no one keeps records of what I buy from out of state, it's impossible to comply with, of course. I can only hope someone with enough money to fight it decides to take it to court. |
| dinotrac Mar 31, 2008 11:49 AM EDT |
>This isn't just an international problem. I've seen at least a couple of equivalent cases at the state level, State level is usually less of a problem, but you might not like the wary it works. Most, if not all, states have something called "long arm" statutes that allow them to claim jurisdiction over people in other states. These statutes derive from a Supreme Court decision years ago (can't remember what it's called) which said that states can claim jurisdiction over people who maintain a certain number of contacts with the states. I can't remember how it all works, but it gets applied to internet sites too. |
| tuxchick Mar 31, 2008 11:56 AM EDT |
If truth in labeling applied to government, it would be called "long pickpocket fingers." |
| jdixon Mar 31, 2008 12:02 PM EDT |
> ...but you might not like the wary it works. There's nothing new about that when it comes to government. I seldom like the way it works. :) > ...which said that states can claim jurisdiction over people who maintain a certain number of contacts with the states. I know that purchases are considered taxable by the state if the business has a business operation (usually considered even one store) in the state. I assume that's from the same decision. |
| NoDough Mar 31, 2008 12:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:There's nothing new about that when it comes to government. I seldom like the way it works. :)Government works?! When did this happen? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!