James Hogarth has provided a summary, "How to buy a standard in 10 days", of the process by which Microsoft's Open Office XML was approved as an ISO standard (subject to an appeal, as Groklaw notes.) I wonder how many lawyers were involved.
James Hogarth has provided a summary, "How to buy a standard in 10 days", of the process by which Microsoft's Open Office XML was approved as an ISO standard (subject to an appeal, as Groklaw notes.) I wonder how many lawyers were involved. [click on the author's name for more information] 2 Comments on “Ooxml and Iso” |
the count:
Simon Fodden on Images in Judgments Daniel Poulin on Images in Judgments John G on The Friday Fillip: Randomness Kim Nayyer on Shoes and Dominoes Adam Dodek on Mandated or Mandatory Pro Bono Gary P. Rodrigues on What's Hot on CanLII This Week Robert Janes on Mandated or Mandatory Pro Bono George Beaton on Director of Innovation for Law Firms? Bonnie Czegledi on Crime and Cultural Property Nate Russell on The New Mega-Journal David Cheifetz on Court Nullifies 2011 Federal Election Results in Etobicoke Centre Victoria Lehman on Real Looking Scams Require Lawyers to Be Warier Than Ever Simon Fodden on Supreme Court Brochure Omar Ha-Redeye on Supreme Court Brochure Lyonette Louis-Jacques on Images in Judgments SlawTips |
|
|
||
Groklaw also reports that Canada voted no.
Does anyone know if Canada is planning to appeal this ISO decision? It seems rather silly to object strongly to this, and then not follow it up with an appeal. The rationale behind the *No* vote was that anything this complex should go though the standard process, and that the *fast track* process was abused to get this though, to the disservice of everyone (except Microsoft). This, combined with the many *voting irregularities* that are coming to light, should be more than enough reason to appeal this decision and keep it in limbo until all concerns of all P members are absolutely and completely addressed, or until it is abandoned (whichever comes first).