Sweden's Vote on OOXML Invalidated 232
Groklaw Reader writes "Just days after Microsoft's attempt to buy the Swedish vote on OOXML came to light, SIS declared its own vote invalid. The post at Groklaw references a ComputerWorld article with revelations from Microsoft: 'Microsoft Corp. admitted Wednesday that an employee at its Swedish subsidiary offered monetary compensation to partners for voting in favor of the Office Open XML document format's approval as an ISO standard. Microsoft said the offer, when discovered, was quickly retracted and that its Sweden managers voluntarily notified the SIS, the national standards body. "We had a situation where an employee sent a communication via e-mail that was inconsistent with our corporate policy," said Tom Robertson, general manager for interoperability and standards at Microsoft. "That communication had no impact on the final vote." ...'"
SIS press release translated (Score:5, Informative)
Two can play the dirty game... (Score:2, Informative)
Not because of Microsofts actions (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not because of Microsofts actions (Score:5, Informative)
It says:
"Motivet till styrelsens beslut är att SIS har information som pekar på att en av deltagarna i arbetsgruppen har deltagit i omröstningen med mer än en röst."
which is saying that: one of the participants have used more than one vote.
Nothing about two or three... more than one. This is the diplomatic way NOT to make it even more blatantly clear that it was Microsoft or is about Microsoft. The part "information som pekar" indicates that they don't have 100% written/audio/video proof and thus this rather "meek" abjection of vote.
Re:Not because of Microsofts actions (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It seems to be the logical step (Score:5, Informative)
You are right; they should not arbitrarily change the rules. However, the official reason why the vote was nullified was not that Microsoft bought themselves a bunch of sock puppets, but that one member at the meeting voted twice. The voting was done by a show of hand, and most likely it was Microsoft themselves, who had three representatives in the room, that by accident and in the excitement of the moment had two of those raise their hands. Reports from the meeting inform us that at that point the mood was ecstatic, the Microsoft goons cheering and applauding as they trumped their line through.
The SIS is now vigorously denying that there is any other reason why the nullified the vote other than this technically proper reason to do so. Of course that is not true; the SIS board saw a way to salvage some of their credibility, built in a century and squandered in a day, by grasping onto this technicality.
That being said, I do think the SIS voting model is fundamentally wrong and broken. The rules do indeed allow the party with the deepest pockets to carry the day. I'm sure this has happened before and it will happen again. I hope the SIS will not get away with this without implementing some thorough reform of how they operate. The same goes for the bodies in other countries that turned out to be easily corruptible.
Lies Come Crashing (Score:4, Informative)
All we need now is someone to come forward from another country with a "coincidentally" similar story.
I'd offer a cash reward for it, but that would influence the process. They'd just have to be satisfied with a world more free of Microsoft domination, maybe some more real innovation than the stagnation that the 80% Microsoft industry represents.
Re:of course... (Score:3, Informative)
And now they have moved into well known territory; Damage Control! It looks like they are doing a good job so far using a pawn for a fall guy.
Re:Lies Come Crashing (Score:4, Informative)
I hope that the mutual coverage of both Microsoft scams gets people to come forward in Norway, too. And that should get more people elsewhere to come forward. Eventually the EU government(s) will have to do something to rein in this rampant monopoly that is corrupting technology and its industry politics in a union that doesn't even get taxes or many jobs from the "deal".
Re:What is microsoft actually trying to achieve? (Score:5, Informative)
If ODF succeeds, Microsoft stands to lose a ton of money in the long run, this is unacceptable to Microsoft, so they will do anything they can to push their not-so-open OOXML format.
Re:What is microsoft actually trying to achieve? (Score:5, Informative)
If there's a truly open consensus format, Ms won't be able to lock in users as easily.
If MS controls the format, they can pull the rug out from under others by extending it, since MS Word is the only (partial) implementation, and MS Word is a defacto monopoly, nobody else has a chance to keep up.
MS doesn't want to do the hard work of making their
And to answer another comment to the parent, no, there is no real
But basically, there are a lot of governments and other institutions that want open formats, and are finally starting to formally insist on them. ODF started getting traction, so MSOOXML is MS's fast track response to try to stop the bleeding.
Re:It seems to be the logical step (Score:3, Informative)
Formal votes occur quite often in Congress. If every vote were a roll call vote, little would get done. In Robert's Rules, anyone can move for a roll call vote, which someone must second. If the majority then wishes, a roll call vote must be taken.
For a roll call vote in Congress there must be a motion, and the motion must be seconded by 20% of the members present. The votes can take upwards of 15 minutes or more. This is straight from the Constitution (Article I section 5)
The point is that it's not a particularly high bar to place to get a roll call vote if one is desired (20 or fewer Senators, and 87 or fewer Representatives, depending on the number present). Tying up congress for the majority of votes that aren't really contentious is counter-productive. (Though I guess having Congress not doing anything is fairly desirable...)
Re:No impact... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not because of Microsofts actions (Score:2, Informative)
(See the "deltagit i omröstningen med mer än en röst" part.)
It's abundantly clear that the meaning of röst = vote is meant here.
Re:It has *seriously* damaged *Sweden's* reputatio (Score:2, Informative)