This is certainly a fascinating thread; my thanks to all for the details it encompasses, such as can be found. I'm sure it's not easy piecing all this together to get relevancy from it. I'll bet what MS does is stall off any implementation of any action via its deep pockets until both products are replaced, followed by a very fast obsoletion of the Word versions, and no one will win. Let's hope OO.o if free of all that malarky.
Twayne` "jonathon" <jonathon.bl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c4797ebf0908131749l112562c8uc24c114b7d317...@mail.gmail.com > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 23:44, Gary Copcutt wrote: > >> Because - my understanding is that the specification for docx >> released by MS is so big it will take a team of 6 to convert >> OpenOffice or any other document create/read app to get it right and >> keep it maintained. This is not going to happen in any short time >> frame. > > The issue with ISO/IEC 29500:2008 is not its size, but with the fact > that it is incomplete, and self-contradictory. (With 7 228 pages > and an additional 8K+ pages for "corrections", it sounds odd to > suggest that it is incomplete, but with over 1500 crucial terms > undefined within the document, or elsewhere in the computer > literature, it is incomplete.) > > If the claim is that no currently distributed software implements > ISO/EIC 2950:2008, and as such, discussion of that standard is > irrelevant, and the focus is purely on MSO 2007, I'll just point > out that the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has > ruled for a permanent injunction prohibiting Microsoft from > selling, or importing Microsoft Word 2003, or later into the United > States, or distributing those products, effective October 2009. > (Hmm, nice timing. The Halloween Documents are a nice irony here.) > > Whilst the united states is not the world, a prohibition on selling > MSO in the united states means that microsoft loses between a quarter > and half of its gross, worldwide revenue. > > And that hastens the conversion of microsoft into a pure patent > troll company. > > Henri wrote: > >> Naturally enough, given the depth of Microsoft's pockets, the case >> is far from over > > I'll just point out that Microsoft's current record in appeals court > has accomplished the opposite of what Microsoft was wanting --- > and in at least two instances resulted in fines greater than that > which was originally imposed on them. > > jonathon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
