Here’s the hearing testimony of opposition to AB 1668, led by Microsoft:
Tags: News
GeekPAC Links
Links
From Youtube
Tags
ab 1668 andy updegrove booth babes brm bytesfree bytesfree-discuss consortiuminfo contributions copyright reform dapper.net eff feeds fred von lohmann fund drive groklaw information rights iso launch legislation lug radio live mailing list marcia hofmann microsoft mpaa new york obama odf ooxml open formats open standards pac pamela jones planet presidential election publicknowledge riaa scale seth david schoen standards syndication tampering volunteers voter info project voter informationRecent Posts
Archives
Recent Comments
- Maria Rabinovitch on Walmart retires DRM, deserts users on the way to freedom.
- Books and Magazines Blog » Archive » Walmart retires DRM, deserts users on the way to freedom. on Walmart retires DRM, deserts users on the way to freedom.
- Silona on GeekPAC to Form Political Action Committee Around Technology Issues; Launches Fundraiser
- Working @ WebConnectConsulting.com » BRM And Why You Should Be Concerned on Beware of Lobbyists Bearing Gifts
- 2008: The Year of Open Document Formats? « Opportunity Knocks on Video Snippets of AB 1668 Hearing
I’m appalled. This video is chilling for the fact that these representatives of the Microsoft Corporation assume the mantel of credibility. They produce a blizzard of misdirection and innuendo, falling back on Microsoft’s time honoured tradition of promoting “fear, uncertainty, and doubt” with regard to truly innovative technological advancements (which, inevitably, do not come from Microsoft). They construct and argument in this video which is exactly the same one that ODF (Open Document Format) supporters could level at Microsoft. The problem here is that Microsoft’s use of this argument - the idea that the State is mandating technology choices which disadvantages Microsoft’s competitive position in the marketplace. This is ludicrous in this context, where Microsoft currently enjoy a monopoly in the marketplace (and a criminal one, at that). On the other hand, ODF advocates could legitimately make the identical claim of Microsoft’s “alternative standard” which, in fact, is not an open standard at all, and which serves the single purpose of reinforcing their ill-gotten hegemony for another generation. Microsoft representatives have shown their willingness to misrepresent Microsoft’s intentions, and those of their opposition. To me, this is unethical, and should be punished by the market (and would be, if the market was savvy enough to understand the issue - sadly, by and large, it is not) and, failing that, by the weak-willed administration which found Microsoft guilty of criminally exploiting its monopoly several years ago.