Malaysia petition signatories saying "NO" to OOXML as an ISO Standard

I ask the national members of ISO to vote "NO" in the ballot of ISO DIS 29500 (Office OpenXML or OOXML format) for the following reasons:

1. There is already a standard ISO26300 named Open Document Format (ODF): a dual standard adds costs, uncertainty and confusion to industry, government and citizens;
2. There is no provable implementation of the OOXML specification: Microsoft Office 2007 produces a special version of OOXML, not a file format which complies with the OOXML specification;
3. There is missing information from the specification document, for example how to do a autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules;
4. More than 10% of the examples mentioned in the proposed standard do not validate as XML;
5. There is no guarantee that anybody can write a software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent damages or patent license fees by Microsoft;
6. This standard proposal conflicts with other ISO standards,
   such as ISO 8601 (Representation of dates and times), ISO 639 (Codes
   for the Representation of Names and Languages) or ISO/IEC 10118-3
   (cryptographic hash);
7. There is a bug in the spreadsheet file format which forbids to enter any date before the year 1900: such bugs affects the OOXML specification as well as software versions such as Microsoft Excel 2000, XP, 2003 or 2007.
8. This standard proposal has not been created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties (such as the producers, sellers, buyers, users and regulators), but by Microsoft alone.

Malaysia signatories:

(updated as at 23 August 2007 evening Malaysia time):

1. Abdul Rahim Ahmad
   Comments: Let Micro SOFT learn the HARD lesson

2. Abdul Rahman Yusmadi
   Comments: NO to the
   Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard!!!

   
   

3. Afrezal Tahrin

   
   

4. Ah Chien Lee
   Comments: The world only
   needs one open and free standard for office document to allow users
   to have free choice of the application software.

   
   

5. Ahmad Firdaus
   Comments: tak mau!

   
   

6. Ahmad Mohamad Afandi
   Comments: Dont own
   this world Microsoft!

   
   

7. Ahmad Wahyudi Mohd Lazim

   
   

8. Albert M. Svoboda
   Comments: No, no to
   more M$ monopolies !!!

   
   

9. Alex Lim

   
   

10. Allan Tham

    
    

11. Alwin Chan

    
    

12. Amir Hamzah
    Comments: Another MS World
    Domination Scheme...

    
    

13. Amir Aswadi Mohd Radin

    
    

14. Andy Tan
    Comments: It's so obvious that
    this is proprietary! Why is ISO even looking at it?

    
    

15. Anthony Chung
    Comments: If the standard
    is by MS then what standard is there!!!

    
    

16. Antonio Foo

    
    

17. Ariff Jamili Miskon

    
    

18. Azizul Shamsudin
    Comments: Say NO to
    Microsoft!!!

    
    

19. Azmeen Afandi
    Comments: Avoid redundant
    and legally-entangled formats at all costs. Acceptance of OOXML will
    plunge more people into vendor lock-ins.

    
    

20. Azmi Norhazlinda
    Comments: No to
    Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

    
    

21. Azrafaizal Rahim

    
    

22. Azwan Amit
    Comments: stop microsoft
    monopoly!

    
    

23. Badariah Solemon

    
    

24. Catharine Tan

    
    

25. Chong Gee Koa
    Comments: A file format
    should not be controlled by a specific commercial company, including
    the changes , the new version  , this will allow monopoly of a
    software company using a file format as a mean

    
    

26. Chong Onn Kok
    Comments: NO to Microsoft
    standard.  We've ODF already and do not need another, especially a
    semi-proprietary one, to confuse everybody.

    
    

27. Chyryll Zariss Baba Ahmad

    
    

28. Colin Charles
    Comments: ODF just seems
    like a better standard. Implementation-wise, its easier. And by
    golly, its as complete, and less complicated. How many times have
    you had old documents that are completely inaccessible today? Lets
    not make the same mistakes of the past, again.

    
    

29. Damon T

    
    

30. Dan Gibas
    Comments: Microsoft is wrong
    again.  <a href="http://www.hygen.net">HYGEN</a>

    
    

31. Dinesh Pandian

    
    

32. Dinesh Nair
    Comments: OOXML does not
    adequately fulfil the requirements for implementation as a proper
    open standard with too much legacy tweaks and ugly workaround for
    previous revisions of products from a single manufacturer.

    
    

33. Ditesh Kumar Gathani
    Comments: There are
    unacceptable technical defects in OOXML at this point in time. The
    standard should be reviewed extensively to remove such defects,
    reconcile contradictions and to explore harmonization with the
    existing ISO standard for electronic office documents.

    
    

34. Edward Tan

    
    

35. Encik Tokan
    Comments: we already have
    ODF..why we need OOXML?!!

    
    

36. Eric Yeoh

    
    

37. Eric Hor

    
    

38. Ezwan Aizat Abdullah Faiz

    
    

39. Foong Yen Lee
    Comments: NO OOXML! NO 6000
    pages of OOXML specification!

    
    

40. Francis Chin
    Say NO to OOXML !

    
    

41. Front Chee
    Comments: Micro-soft, please
    realise the awkwardness of your old ways.

    
    

42. Fung-Yen Yew

    
    

43. Gareth Davies
    Comments: Microsoft should
    be stopped from monopolizing the market any further.

    
    

44. George Var

    
    

45. Guo Lin See

    
    

46. Hadri A Rahman
    Comments: Not another
    format???

    
    

47. Hanafi Noor
    Comments: Dont waste money
    and be smart.

    
    

48. Hanif Nordan Yeah !

    
    

49. hardy N Jafar

    
    

50. Harisfazillah Jamel
    Comments: Using
    Ubuntu Desktop with Open Office

    
    

51. Hasannudin Saidin

    
    

52. Hazlin Sallih
    Comments: NO OOXML!!!

    
    

53. Haznizul A.Shukery

    
    

54. Hazrina Yusof Hamdani
    Comments: Say NO to
    OOXML

    
    

55. Hean Kuan Ong
    NO!

    
    

56. Henry Ho
    Comments: I support a neutral
    document format that gives me freedom to choose the software I use
    to create my data instead of being forced to rely on the software
    from a single company.

    
    

57. Hood Lai Muhamad Lai
    Comments: God is
    one.

    
    

58. Isaac Chong
    Comments: We do not need an
    ISO standard that's controlled by a single vendor.

    
    

59. Izauddin Mohd Isa
    Comments: A typical
    Microsoft ploy to tied consumer to their product, in the namesake of
    open standard. System Integration will be a hassle even though
    Microsoft said that it an open standard.

    
    

60. Jacob Thomas

    
    

61. James Wu
    Comments: MS Office as
    standard.... No way....

    
    

62. Jason Tan
    Comments: Any corporate move
    that tries to protect its monopoly to the detriment of the people
    should be exposed for what it is.

    
    

63. John Mah

    
    

64. John David Cardosa
    Comments: I vote NO to
    the Microsoft Office Format as an ISO Standard

    
    

65. John Wong
    Comments: just so microsoft to
    force adoption

    
    

66. Kairil Muhammad
    NoOOXML

    
    

67. Keng Tat Low
    Comments: ODF should be the
    standard, why starting new when there is already one in place :)

    
    
68. 
    

    Kevin Francis
    Comments: We do not need two competing and
    incompatible standards

    
    

69. Khairil Yusof
    Comments: Data I created,
    should be in my control not by a vendor and locked up in their
    proprietary format with their proprietary software.

    
    

70. Kit Yoong Chung

    
    

71. Kok Yew Lim

    
    

72. Kwong Khon Leong

    
    

73. Leow Poh Fei

    
    

74. Lew Chin Hoi
    No OOXML

    
    

75. Lian Tze Lim

    
    

76. Liew San Siang
    Comments: It's not a
    standard since it is, and will always be lock down to a single
    vendor.

    
    

77. Lily We

    
    

78. Lucyantie Mazalan
    Comments: Saya mengundi
    TIDAK di dalam undian ISO DIS 29500

    
    

79. Lye Hin Yew
    Comments: One standard, one
    world! No to OOXML, no to Microsoft, no to monopoly.

    
    

80. Lye Seng Yew
    Comments: How many ISO
    standards do we need? Make it as simple as possible.

    
    

81. Mack Zulkifli
    Comments: One is a
    standard. Two merely signifies inconsistency.

    
    

82. Manimohan Manickam
    Comments: No comment,
    fully support the petition!

    
    

83. Mark Povey
    Comments: A pen and paper,
    work no matter where I am or what year. Documents saved on computer
    should have the same degree of freedom.

    
    

84. Maulvi Bakar
    Comments: No, no and for the
    third time, NO!

    
    

85. Maznan Deraman
    Comments: I vote NO for
    OOXML as an ISO standard

    
    

86. Michael Leow
    Comments: Microsoft should
    be implementing the ODF standard instead of the rest of the world
    implementing a Microsoft specification!

    
    

87. Mohamad Amirizzuan Ramli
    Comments: No to
    Microsoft Office format as ISO!

    
    

88. Mohamad Hisham Rahim

    
    

89. Mohamad Ridzuan Yusop
    Comments: define:Open.
    Microsoft's definition of "open" is a big joke.

    
    

90. Mohammed Firdaus Mohammed AB Halim

    
    

91. Mohd Ariff Abdullah

    
    

92. Mohd Hazli MZ

    
    

93. Mohd Hisham Mohd Hardi

    
    

94. Mohd Irwan Jamaluddin
    Comments: Katakan
    TAK NAK kepada OOXML! OpenDocument (ODF) adalah format untuk masa
    kini dan masa hadapan.

    
    

95. Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail
    Comments: A
    standard must be own by everyone .. not by one company

    
    

96. Mohd Khairulnizam Hasan

    
    

97. Mohd Redzuan Affandi Abdul Rahim
    Comments: I
    support that OOXML should not be accepted as a standard since it is
    not really vendor independent.

    
    

98. Mohd Sofian Abd. Molok
    Comments: I vote
    for no!

    
    

99. Mohd Syazli Mahmud

    
    

100. Mohd Tar Adik
     Comments: in to improve ODF
     is better way.

     
     

101. Molly Cheah
     Comments: Reiterating "No"

     
     

102. Muhammad Azwa Shariffuddin
     Comments: release
     youself from the shadow of uncertainty. no more ooxml. use odf
     instead, it's truly standard :).

     
     

103. Muhammad Najmi Ahmad Zabidi
     Comments: No
     to OOXML

     
     

104. Muhammad Shahriman Samsudin
     Comments: Don`t
     confuse us!!

     
     

105. Muhd Zamri MS
     Comments: We should support
     standard for Office suite and that standard should only be one.

     
     

106. Mun Heng Ow
     Comments: Open Specs for ALL
     access

     
     

107. Mun Yee Chow

     
     

108. Murshid Azman

     
     

109. Nai-Siew Yeak
     Comments: Conform to open
     standard that is accepted by all, not one.

     
     

110. Nazrita ibra

     
     

111. Nicholas Suppiah
     Comments: The body
     deciding on ISO acceptable standards must be made aware of its
     responsibility and here is one such situation. Recognise the voice
     of many and reasoning.

     
     

112. Nicholas Ng
     Comments: Why need more than
     one standard in documents (which already exist: ODF).

     
     

113. Nick Choo
     Comments: Use OpenOffice!
     Download OpenOffice from www.openoffice.org

     
     

114. Norzakimi Zahari

     
     

115. Patrick Cheong
     Comments: One voice, once
     standard!

     
     

116. Penjejak Badai just say no

     
     

117. Peyman Taher No to OOXML

     
     

118. Philip Craig
     Comments: Wake up and realise
     that OOXML is not as open as Microsoft tells you it is. Please give
     us the freedom to compete!

     
     

119. Philip Yeo Microsoft ain't playing
     it fair...!

     
     

120. Praburaajan Selvarajan

     
     

121. Raja Iskandar Shah

     
     

122. Ravind Ramesh Valiapan

     
     

123. Ravindran Devarajan

     
     

124. Raymond Victor

     
     

125. Rizal Shahari
     Comments: Say NO to ISO DIS
     29500

     
     

126. Roslan Ali
     Comments: Say NO to Microsoft

     
     

127. Safian Bin Anuar

     
     

128. Safwan Kamarrudin

     
     

129. Safwan Abu Hassan
     Comments: No way Billy.

     
     

130. Saharuddin Abdul-Latiff

     
     

131. Salman Yussof

     
     

132. SG Khoo

     
     

133. Shahdan Kamarudin
     Comments: I Support ODF..

134. Shawn Wong
     Comments: A 6000 Page wall of
     text does't reinforce that OOXML is 'open standard'. "Monopoly"
     should remain as a board game - no more than that.

     
     

135. Shirlyn Leong

     
     

136. Sian Lerk Lau
     Comments: I agree.

     
     

137. Soo Hoe Nah

     
     

138. Soon Hueng Neoh
     Comments: WhY pay more?
     Get ODF

     
     

139. Suanie Tew

     
     

140. Suhaimi Hassan
     Comments: NO  to OOXML

     
     

141. Suhairi Abdul Hamid

     
     

142. Suresh Ramasamy

     
     

143. Syazlan Osman

     
     

144. Sze Chern Tan

     
     

145. TC Seow
     Comments: open standards it
     isn't. No to OOXML.

     
     

146. Tejinder Singh
     Comments: NO !!!

     
     

147. Tengku Mohd Anis Tengku
     Abidin
     Comments: Katakan tidak kepada OOXML

     
     

148. TK Ong

     
     

149. Tobias Ph. E. Romer

     
     

150. Trisha Ding

     
     

151. Tsewai Chong

     
     

152. Uwe Dippel
     Comments: A standard
     introduced by a single vendor and based on her software is a
     lopsided standard

     
     

153. Victor Yap

     
     

154. wan abid khalil

     
     

155. Wan Muhammad Nasiruddin

     
     

156. wendy sia

     
     

157. Wilfred Tee

     
     

158. William Gan no ooxml.....

     
     

159. Yen Ping Loong

     
     

160. Yoon Kit Yong
     Comments: Some commentaries
     on why MSOOXML is not a particularly good standard:
     http://www.openmalaysiablog.com

     
     

161. Yunus Y

     
     

162. Yusseri Yusoff
     Comments: Still cannot see
     why Microsoft don't just embrace and extend ISO 26300. They've got
     the brains to do it
     

163. 
     Zulkilfil Zulfa Juniadi
     

     
     

 

Comments

[Nik Nizan]

One standard to rule them all

[adzimat masuood]

Dunia lebih maju, dengan OSS

[Hanafi]

We refuse to be dictated by Microsoft.

[Jovey Lee]

Good work Hasan. Keep it up.

[suzaini supingat]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

[sofian mohamad]

no.

[Nazrul Nifkuzyaire]

i'm purposing this hot topic as my MBA dissertation.Will glad to learn malaysian acceptance.what theories should i refer?anyone?

[Hasan]

Nazrul, email to us (open-AT-openmalaysiabloog-DOT-com) with more details of your MBA dissertation ideas and we'll see how we can support you. Thanks.

[FFAQ98]

Does anyone actually read what MSFT says...
and see the most obvious flaw in their statement?

To me it was classic MSFT trick and so obvious and stupid that I expected everyone to jump on it right away. I failed to comment on it at the time because it was so obvious. Then I failed to comment because I started thinking that it is so obvious that I must be wrong about seeing what I saw there. Surely someone more experienced on legal issues than me would see it.

I mean it is absolutely in clear language in the OOXML IP commitment.

But now we have even SFLC analysis of the agreement which as far as I can see fails to see the most obvious trap. Either I am missing some legal detail or a lot of people seem to not actually read what is actually written.

MSFT IP (intellectual property in the widest sense of words i.e. patents, copyrights, trademarks etc.) guarantee states that they give ***NO rights to any of their IP*** that is not necessary to implement to minimal *mandatory* part of the standard. In particular, they give no rights to anyone just because a legacy formats are REFERRED in the standard.

The more stuff BRM moved to appendices or relegated to legacy status or optional parts of the standard, the happier MSFT was. Only they can ever implement the standard in full!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one else has any rights to even try to implement any of the functionality that is not spelled out in the mandatory parts of the standard in full. Note that any part that is not spelled out in detail is MSFT property and they agreement gives you no rights to even ask them how their various binary formats work or how MS workd 95 formats a list of items or whatever other thing that is defined by reference to how piece of software XXX works. The binary file formats are not essential part of the standard and even trying to reverse engineer them becomes even more illegal under many jurisdictions in Europe where many of MSFT most abusive behaviour was curtailed in small degree under certain protections w.r.t. rights to reverse engineer or reimplement things independently. Note that the legal status of MSFT binary format changes in each and every jurisdiction quite unpredictabibly if OOXML becomes law.

Of course MSFT could eliminate this obstacle to acceptance to OOXML by simply giving blanket license, right to sublicense and agreement not to sue anyone for any implemenetatons of the OOXML standard.

But then again, that would defeat their purpose of trying to make OOXML a standard....

Remember, all the law applies all the time and I actually see OOXML giving MSFT more protections in some jurisdictions within EU that they never had before!!!!!!

Am I really missing something or are legally minded people missing the big log in our common eye because of the forest of trivial detail?

(Signature FFAQ98)