Maybe M$ will expect a quid pro quo from others when their (OOXML) turn comes.

Well that was nice, but when will Word have native ODF support like everybody really wants?

First off, Microsoft is not supporting "choice" at all. This is merely a sophomoric ploy to counter their patent muck this week. And while it's nice that ODF will be on the ANSI list, Microsoft also wants MS-OOXML on the list too, despite the fact that no one but Microsoft supports it, controls it, or even knows what's actually in it. (Remember, so far, not even Microsoft has been able to create a half-decently accurate converter for MS-OOXML — into any other format, not even .doc)!

As Bob Sutor notes:
The industry wants a common set of the fewest possible non-overlapping standards, and then a large choice of applications that use those standards. An analogy: I don’t want lots of standards for electrical wires and plugs in my house, I want a few standards and then a huge choice of electrical appliances. Microsoft is deliberately trying to confuse the industry and its customers with this bizarre and self-serving "choice of standards" argument.

So no, Microsoft does not care about "standards, interoperability, and stuff." If they did, you'd be able to name one or two, don't you think? And don't forget, Microsoft cares "so much" about standards — a universal ISO certified standard in ODF — that it refused to either allow Office 2007 to save documents in ODF as its native file format, or even put ODF in their 'Save As' dialog.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see this as having anything to do with the patent question. Not that the patent issue would even really be an issue if it were another market sector and another company. Microsoft seems to draw this kind of criticism, though, which I do believe explains the ODF/OOXML bit.

"Microsoft also wants MS-OOXML on the list too, despite the fact that no one but Microsoft supports it, controls it, or even knows what's actually in it."

Aside from the criticism, of COURSE Microsoft wants their format on the list. You make it sound like they SHOULDN'T want it on the list., which makes no sense.

"So no, Microsoft does not care about "standards, interoperability, and stuff.""

That was never my implication, in fact, I agree. Microsoft only cares about their products and their standards. This is true of virtually any commercial organization, however.

As I said below, the only reason I believe Microsoft voted to have ODF included is to be able to point back tot hat vote and claim they played fair. That vote I don't really think had anything to do with their standard, the patent issue, or anything else. It was a face-saving measure to ward of future criticism should their standard become widely used and someone cries foul.

Since you don't believe their proposed standard will ever get to that point, it really means nothing then. Doesn't it?

The way I see it, MS didn't have a choice but to vote in favor of ODF. If they didn't, they would be proving their critics right about MS not favoring open standards.

MS has been trying very hard in recent years to prove that they care about standards, interoperability and stuff.

Exactly.

1.) Microsoft has largely done everything to counter the ODF's acceptance as an alternative document format.

According to whom? What have they done, other than develop a "competing" standard?

2.) If Microsoft really were all about championing choice and interoperability on behalf of its customers, would it have gone public with the number of patents it claims that open-source software infringes — without providing any specifics or details?

Why? The patent system is public. Anyone who wants to can peruse it at their leisure. No company would want that specific information advertised. It is up to the companies involved, and/or the courts to validate and verify, not public scrutiny or opinion.

What this boils down to is that Microsoft is supporting choices. They want to make sure that there are multiple certified standards to choose from. Of course they want theirs to be the most chosen, but they also do not want to lock out competing standards as that would simply fuel those who have an interest in seeing Microsoft in court again over abusing a monopoly position.

Well, my 2 cents, anyway. From a different perspective.

I don't understand the need to be biased about this. From a business standpoint, this is simply common sense.

From a business, or goverment, or personal users standpoint more that one standard is the same as no standard at all.

A real standard puts all the vendors in contention, like the many vendors who have implemented ODF.

Huge mounds of documentation about a file format only one vendor can implement does not make a standard. EOOXML is a standard like an animal trap is free meal; it's just a lock-in.

well Microsoft is the greatest computer OS company in the world for a reason ... I dont knw why every technological advance they make always has to get a negative spin put on it by Betanews.

Way to unbiased report ... I'm sure thats what they taught all you so called writers in school.

You don't see the irony in this story? MS has been poo-poo-ing ODF since it began. This is like Pepsi voting for Coke to be the drink served at baseball parks.

Rather, it's like Pepsi saying Coke should be called a 'soda' just like Pepsi in case there are baseball parks out there that won't serve drinks that aren't 'sodas'.

Microsoft wants ODF to be certified so that they are not viewed as trying to "lock-out" the competition form the markets that will not use uncertified standards. It's not that they believe it's a good alternative to OXML, or even that it's a decent product, it's simply a business decision to avoid being labeled as anti-competitive.

They'll be able to point to this down the road as proof that they were "playing nice".

concur