From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sun Jun 24 17:46:57 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_dLlScLIupyz/yGH2hCUYwg)" Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:44:46 -0400 From: Stephen Peront Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Content-language: en-us Thread-index: Ace2tspw7eYffoz5SkC/7l+LL345TgACpO2g X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_dLlScLIupyz/yGH2hCUYwg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Rob. You are mistaken. I have not said anything about the market, other than to re-paste what you have said, like this: > I'd second that. I've done some research in this area to see how > often the name of the standard is misstated as "Open Office XML". > This is happening everywhere, and by doing so is causing user > confusion as well as diluting the value of the Open Office > trademark. For examples, query Google for "Ecma Open Office XML" or > "Microsoft Open Office XML". You should get zero hits for these > phrases, but instead you get hundreds of hits, from the press, from > analysts, even from Microsoft. I only refer to the marketing plan because of what you said, here it is again (in case you forgot): If you look at the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines you can see the specific topics that are out of bounds: * Any company's prices or pricing policies; * Specific R&D, sales and marketing plans; Are you saying that the decision to name OpenOffice is not in an archived marketing plan document somewhere? If anything I would say that IBM making a comment that is directly related to one of their marketing plans as an argument to defeat a standard by a competing company and technology is a case for anti-trust and continued proof for why I suggest we strike the naming comment. I would like to once again motion that we remove this comment from our list and focus on some of the more relevant comments that have been made, does anyone agree who would be willing to second this motion? Have an awesome day! Thanks, -Stephen From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:24 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 The name of a product that has been around since 2000 is a fact, not a marketing plan. The presence of the pre-existing trademark is a fact, not a marketing plan. The use of the name "Office Open XML" as the title of DIS 29500 is a fact, not a marketing plan. The confusion of this name substantiated with ample documentation. So far as I can tell you are the only one talking about markets and marketing plans. -Rob ___________________________ Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ "Stephen Peront" Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org 06/24/2007 06:34 PM Please respond to incits-v1@incits-v1.org To cc Subject RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 Hi Rob. The last I checked the naming of a product (i.e. OpenOffice) is part of a Marketing Plan, is that correct? Have an awesome day! Thanks, -Stephen From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 6:29 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 Stephen, If you wish to stretch it so that every mention of an existing product is a discussion of a "market factor" then we would not be able to discuss the OOXML specification at all since it makes numerous references to legacy Microsoft products and technologies. In fact a primary stated purpose of the standard is to support compatibility with such legacy products and technologies. However something being "in the market" does not ipso facto make discussion of it a discussion of market factors. If you look at the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines you can see the specific topics that are out of bounds: * Any company's prices or pricing policies; * Specific R&D, sales and marketing plans; * Any company's confidential product, product development or production strategies; * Whether certain suppliers or customers will be served; * Prices paid to input sources; or * Complaints about individual firms or other actions that might tend to hinder a competitor in any market. ( http://www.incits.org/inatrust.htm) -Rob ___________________________ Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ "Stephen Peront" Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org 06/24/2007 06:08 PM Please respond to incits-v1@incits-v1.org To cc Subject RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 Hi Rob. So the argument here is that this committee should comment that the naming of OOXML as a standard is confusing with the name of a product in the "market" (i.e. OpenOffice). Isn't that a "market factor"? I am confused, a) is it a good idea or b) not a good idea for this committee to consider market factors? I disagree with the argument that OOXML is a bad name for a standard, and think we should not comment on the naming of OOXML; especially since we already know of a situation where commenting on the change of the name has caused the defeat of another Fast Track standard. Submitting this comment would imply that this committee agrees that OOXML should be defeated as a standard (since we have proof of this). Patrick (and team), seeing as we have so many other comments to go through, I would like to motion that we remove this comment from the list of items we will consider submitting and therefore need to review due to its controversial nature and potential confusion with the vote of this committee. Have an awesome day! Cheers, -Stephen From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 5:46 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 Office Open XML is commonly misstated as Open Office XML, where Open Office is the name of a product that competes directly against MS Office. I've given numerous examples of actual confusion caused by this choice of name. I've also cited the precedent of C++/CLI where just last year another Ecma Fast Track with a similarly confusing name, a confusion which Ecma also refused to address when it was raised in the contradiction period, leading to the ultimate defeat of that Fast Track. So commenting on the name of a standard, by this precedent, is clearly in scope for JTC1 NB reviews of Fast Track submissions. I would not presume that we as V1 name the standard ourselves. LOX was suggested in jest. But I do propose (or actually second the proposal) that we submit a comment requesting that Ecma change the name of the standard to one which is not confused with existing technologies. -Rob ___________________________ Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 06/24/2007 05:07:50 PM: > Hi Rob. > > On May 24th, Patrick said: > > But, we are all adults, or at least of legal age, so even given the > > history that some of the members of V1 "enjoy", I think we can be civil. > > > > That is not meant to suggest that anyone should not feel free to say > > whatever they like, but be aware that some comments are less likely to > > produce useful responses than others. > > Will the change of a name really make this a better (or worse) > standard for the US? > > I would argue that suggesting we rename from OOXML to LOX is not > only demeaning to members of this committee that are actively creating *new > * document formats (i.e. Xinnovation) built on OOXML but also to the > publisher of OOXML (i.e. ECMA). > > OOXML is distinctly different enough from ODF (having only one word > the same) for us "civilized" beings to distinguish. > > I believe in our last meeting, the argument was made, by you, that > we should not be considering "current market factors" as a way to > determine a standard. And yet your research, below, is clearly based > on "current market factors". > > Also on May 24th, Rob (yes, you) said (referring to "home field advantage"): > > In any case, I have no interest in that kind of tactic. > > Are you comments below just a different kind of tactic or are they > meant to add some kind of value to the integrity if this committee's > comments? If they are meant to add value, can you please help me and > this committee understand how submitting a comment that suggests we > rename the standard to the initials of a common flavor of cream > cheese will in any way contribute to making this a better standard. > > Have an awesome day! > > Cheers, > -Stephen > > From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] > On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:06 PM > To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org > Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 > > > > > > > What *does* move me to agree that the name "Office Open XML" > > should be changed is that it is designed to cause confusion with > > OpenOffice, a leading open-source ODF application. It is not the > > purpose of the standards we work on to cause confusion, and > > certainly not to deliberately cause confusion. The name should be > > changed to something that avoids this confusion rather than > > actively promoting it. > > > > Jon > > > > I'd second that. I've done some research in this area to see how > often the name of the standard is misstated as "Open Office XML". > This is happening everywhere, and by doing so is causing user > confusion as well as diluting the value of the Open Office > trademark. For examples, query Google for "Ecma Open Office XML" or > "Microsoft Open Office XML". You should get zero hits for these > phrases, but instead you get hundreds of hits, from the press, from > analysts, even from Microsoft. > > I've updated my analysis of this problem here: http://www.robweir. > com/blog/2007/01/amusing-but-still-confusing.html > > I'd like to see us submit a comment requesting a name change. Maybe > "Legacy Office XML" or LOX. > > -Rob > > ___________________________ > > Rob Weir > Software Architect > Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software > IBM Software Group > > email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com > phone: 1-978-399-7122 > blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ --Boundary_(ID_dLlScLIupyz/yGH2hCUYwg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi Rob…

 

You are mistaken. I have not said anything about the market, other than to re-paste what you have said, like this:

 

> I'd second that.  I've done some research in this area to see how
> often the name of the standard is misstated as "Open Office XML".  
> This is happening everywhere, and by doing so is causing user
> confusion as well as diluting the value of the Open Office
> trademark.  For examples, query Google for "Ecma Open Office XML" or
> "Microsoft Open Office XML".  You should get zero hits for these
> phrases, but instead you get hundreds of hits, from the press, from
> analysts, even from Microsoft.

I only refer to the marketing plan because of what you said, here it is again (in case you forgot):

 

If you look at the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines you can see the specific topics that are out of bounds:

  • Any company's prices or pricing policies;
  • Specific R&D, sales and marketing plans;

 

Are you saying that the decision to name OpenOffice is not in an archived marketing plan document somewhere? If anything I would say that IBM making a comment that is directly related to one of their marketing plans as an argument to defeat a standard by a competing company and technology is a case for anti-trust and continued proof for why I suggest we strike the naming comment.

 

I would like to once again motion that we remove this comment from our list and focus on some of the more relevant comments that have been made, does anyone agree who would be willing to second this motion?

 

Have an awesome day!

 

Thanks,

-Stephen

 

From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:24 PM
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12

 


The name of a product that has been around since 2000 is a fact, not a marketing plan.  The presence of the pre-existing trademark is a fact, not a marketing plan.  The use of the name "Office Open XML" as the title of DIS 29500 is a fact, not a marketing plan.  The confusion of this name substantiated with ample documentation.  

So far as I can tell you are the only one talking about markets and marketing plans.  

-Rob

___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/


"Stephen Peront" <speront@xinn.com>
Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org

06/24/2007 06:34 PM

Please respond to
incits-v1@incits-v1.org

To

<incits-v1@incits-v1.org>

cc

Subject

RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12

 




Hi Rob…
 
The last I checked the naming of a product (i.e. OpenOffice) is part of a Marketing Plan, is that correct?
 
Have an awesome day!
 
Thanks,
-Stephen
 
From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent:
Sunday, June 24, 2007 6:29 PM
To:
incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject:
RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12

 

Stephen,


If you wish to stretch it so that every mention of an existing product is a discussion of a "market factor" then we would not be able to discuss the OOXML specification at all since it makes numerous references to legacy Microsoft products and technologies.  In fact a primary stated purpose of the standard is to support compatibility with such legacy products and technologies.  However something being "in the market" does not ipso facto make discussion of it a discussion of market factors.


If you look at the INCITS Antitrust Guidelines you can see the specific topics that are out of bounds:

  • Any company's prices or pricing policies;
  • Specific R&D, sales and marketing plans;
  • Any company's confidential product, product development or production strategies;
  • Whether certain suppliers or customers will be served;
  • Prices paid to input sources; or
  • Complaints about individual firms or other actions that might tend to hinder a competitor in any market.


( http://www.incits.org/inatrust.htm)



-Rob

___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/

"Stephen Peront" <speront@xinn.com>
Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org

06/24/2007 06:08 PM

 

Please respond to
incits-v1@incits-v1.org

 

To

<incits-v1@incits-v1.org>

cc

Subject

RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12


 

 





Hi Rob…

 
So the argument here is that this committee should comment that the naming of OOXML as a standard is confusing with the name of a product in the “market” (i.e. OpenOffice). Isn’t that a “market factor”?

 
I am confused, a) is it a good idea or b) not a good idea for this committee to consider market factors?

 
I disagree with the argument that OOXML is a bad name for a standard, and think we should not comment on the naming of OOXML; especially since we already know of a situation where commenting on the change of the name has caused the defeat of another Fast Track standard. Submitting this comment would imply that this committee agrees that OOXML should be defeated as a standard (since we have proof of this).
 
Patrick (and team), seeing as we have so many other comments to go through, I would like to motion that we remove this comment from the list of items we will consider submitting and therefore need to review due to its controversial nature and potential confusion with the vote of this committee.

 
Have an awesome day!

 
Cheers,

-Stephen

 
 
From:
owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent:
Sunday, June 24, 2007 5:46 PM
To:
incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject:
RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12

 

Office Open XML is commonly misstated as Open Office XML, where Open Office is the name of a product that competes directly against MS Office.  I've given numerous examples of actual confusion caused by this choice of name.  I've also cited the precedent of C++/CLI where just last year another Ecma Fast Track with a similarly confusing name, a confusion which Ecma also refused to address when it was raised in the contradiction period, leading to the ultimate defeat of that Fast Track.   So commenting on the name of a standard, by this precedent, is clearly in scope for JTC1 NB reviews of Fast Track submissions.  


I would not presume that we as V1 name the standard ourselves.  LOX was suggested in jest.   But I do propose (or actually second the proposal) that we submit a comment requesting that Ecma change the name of the standard to one which is not confused with existing technologies.


-Rob


___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/


owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 06/24/2007 05:07:50 PM:

> Hi Rob…

>  

> On May 24th, Patrick said:

> > But, we are all adults, or at least of legal age, so even given the
> > history that some of the members of V1 "enjoy", I think we can be civil.
> >
> > That is not meant to suggest that anyone should not feel free to say
> > whatever they like, but be aware that some comments are less likely to
> > produce useful responses than others.

>  

> Will the change of a name really make this a better (or worse)
> standard for the US?

>  

> I would argue that suggesting we rename from OOXML to LOX is not
> only demeaning to members of this committee that are actively creating *new
> * document formats (i.e. Xinnovation) built on OOXML but also to the
> publisher of OOXML (i.e. ECMA).

>  

> OOXML is distinctly different enough from ODF (having only one word
> the same) for us “civilized” beings to distinguish.
>  

> I believe in our last meeting, the argument was made, by you, that
> we should not be considering “current market factors” as a way to
> determine a standard. And yet your research, below, is clearly based
> on “current market factors”.
>  

> Also on May 24th, Rob (yes, you) said (referring to “home field advantage”):

> > In any case, I have no interest in that kind of tactic.

>  

> Are you comments below just a different kind of tactic or are they
> meant to add some kind of value to the integrity if this committee’s
> comments? If they are meant to add value, can you please help me and
> this committee understand how submitting a comment that suggests we
> rename the standard to the initials of a common flavor of cream
> cheese will in any way contribute to making this a better standard.

>  

> Have an awesome day!

>  

> Cheers,

> -Stephen

>  

> From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org]
> On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:06 PM
> To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
> Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12

>  

>
>
> >
> > What *does* move me to agree that the name "Office Open XML"
> > should be changed is that it is designed to cause confusion with
> > OpenOffice, a leading open-source ODF application.  It is not the
> > purpose of the standards we work on to cause confusion, and
> > certainly not to deliberately cause confusion.  The name should be
> > changed to something that avoids this confusion rather than
> > actively promoting it.
> >
> > Jon
> >
>
> I'd second that.  I've done some research in this area to see how
> often the name of the standard is misstated as "Open Office XML".  
> This is happening everywhere, and by doing so is causing user
> confusion as well as diluting the value of the Open Office
> trademark.  For examples, query Google for "Ecma Open Office XML" or
> "Microsoft Open Office XML".  You should get zero hits for these
> phrases, but instead you get hundreds of hits, from the press, from
> analysts, even from Microsoft.
>
> I've updated my analysis of this problem here:  http://www.robweir.
> com/blog/2007/01/amusing-but-still-confusing.html
>
> I'd like to see us submit a comment requesting a name change.  Maybe
> "Legacy Office XML" or LOX.
>
> -Rob
>
> ___________________________
>
> Rob Weir
> Software Architect
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Software Group
>
> email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
> phone: 1-978-399-7122
> blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/

--Boundary_(ID_dLlScLIupyz/yGH2hCUYwg)--