Return to the Press page

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013

Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation (Linux.com)

[Posted April 17, 2007 by ris]

Linux.com reports on Microsoft funded lobbying efforts to defeat open data formats. "It was just a bit of text advocating open data formats that was slipped into a Florida State Senate bill at the last minute with no fanfare, but within 24 hours three Microsoft-paid lobbyists, all wearing black suits, were pressuring members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Operations (COGO) to remove the words they didn't like from Senate bill 1974." (Thanks to Lisa)

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Apr 17, 2007 22:01 UTC (Tue) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link]

Ironic that a so-called proponent of openness would attempt to sneak something into a bill hoping no one would notice.

Proponents "sneaking"?

Posted Apr 18, 2007 0:53 UTC (Wed) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

The phrases "slipped in at the last minute" and "without fanfare" do not
necessarily equate to "sneaking it in."

It's quite possible that these few words were legitimately an afterthought.

"Hey, wherever possible openly documented and unencumbered data formats
should be preferred over those which are patented or for which there is
a single vendor implementation."

Certainly it's possible that the participants were trying to be sneaky.
However, this seems to attribute something to malice when it's as easy
to see how it might be no more sinister than any other "last minute"
proposals and ammendments.

Alternatively it could be that it was "snuck in" at the last minute
specifically to avoid the exact sort of corporate tampering that has
actually ensued despite the attempt. Perhaps the proponents were
cognizant of how the shenanigans in Massachusetts last year affected
some of the proponents of open formats there.

Given that the states governments are SUPPOSED to be primarily
responsible to their constituents ... and secondarily to the national
populace ... to the VOTERS ... it seems misguided to malign them based
on some perception that they *might* have been seeking to avoid undue
attention from corporate interests on the other side of the continent.

JimD

Proponents "sneaking"?

Posted Apr 18, 2007 20:36 UTC (Wed) by Felix.Braun (subscriber, #3032) [Link]

True, you should never attribute to malice what is equally well explained by ignorance or carelessness However, this doesn't sit well with the article's statement that

Rep. Homan and his son Doug tried to add their little open standards boost to SB 1974 as quietly as possible. They wanted the modified bill to at least get through its first committee approval before anyone spotted what they had done.

Proponents "sneaking"?

Posted Apr 20, 2007 21:08 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

However, this doesn't sit well with the article's statement that
Rep. Homan and his son Doug tried to add their little open standards boost to SB 1974 as quietly as possible. They wanted the modified bill to at least get through its first committee approval before anyone spotted what they had done.

But note that the article gives no backup whatsoever for that statement, and the article contains very little actual reportage (e.g. quotes, named sources). My guess is that this is just the author's conclusion based on circumstances.

Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 17, 2007 22:03 UTC (Tue) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link]

Microsoft's infiltration into American legislative matters has disgusted me to the point of jadedness. I hope that the American public ultimately realizes just how much Microsoft's behavior (as exemplified by these lobbyists' actions) reflects their insatiable demand for control (and their unwillingness to share any market with competitors).

Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 18, 2007 15:53 UTC (Wed) by allenp (guest, #5654) [Link]

I don't think the American public (or the general public anywhere, for that
matter) cares about much more than whether their iPod and cell phone camera
work with their computer. Behind-the-scenes dirty tricks by the monopoly
are so far beneath their radar as to be nonexistent.

Has anybody read Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point"? He would call
many of us "mavens", and note that the obviousness of Microsoft's
mendacity has not tipped into public currency because we lack "communicators"
to efficiently spread the meme. Marketers (and possibly neo-con politicos)
have understood how this works for decades. Why not us?

Paul Allen

Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 19, 2007 0:05 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Because many programmers beleive that politics don't matter (or at least are beneath them) and that technical superiority is all you realy need to prove a point in the real world?

Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 19, 2007 9:47 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

What's up with the way legislation is done over the pond anyway ?

Why does it make sense to have a single text with wildly unrelated desicions ? (not saying this bill is, but there's plenty of examples of single-bills having completely unrelated suggestions: why not break these up ?)
What's up with these last-minute-changes-by-single-party in general ? I'm used to a system where a suggestion -- once made -- can only be adjusted by a majority vote.

Are there actual benefits to this ? Or is it just as silly as it looks ? I don't mean to be inflamatory or anything, I'm genuinely curious.

Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation (Linux.com)

Posted Apr 19, 2007 22:53 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

I think the question is more to ask "who does perpetuating this benefit". I believe it is seen as a useful tool by enough lawmakers that they are not about to remove it, and it is not seen as problematic enough by the public (beneath the radar) to demand a change.

Many bills get passed with focus intact. It's not required that they include nonsensical mixing ;-)