Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Brazil Appeals OOXML Too! Asks Approval Be Reconsidered

By Pamela Jones et al.

South Africa was the first, but not the last. Now Brazil has sent a letter protesting the adoption of OOXML as an ISO standard also, and Andy Updegrove says he has heard there will be more:

Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), the National Body representing Brazil, today filed an appeal to the approval of OOXML by ISO/IEC, bringing the current total of appeals to two, with as many as two additional appeals to come, based upon what I have heard from private sources. The text of the Brazilian appeal appears in full at the end of this blog entry, supplied by a trusted source in Brazil.

While this latest appeal overlaps the South African objections in part, it also raises new concerns, some of which are particular to the interests of Brazil, rather than applying to the process as a whole. As a result, it raises not only additional issues, but also ones that present a categorically different basis for appeal as well.

They ask that the approval be "reconsidered", and believe it or not, it was a very heated meeting, and at the end one member of the committee quit in disgust that the letter wasn't even stronger. It seems there actually is a limit to how much Microsoft can push the entire world around. Frank Hayes puzzles, as have so many of us, over why Microsoft suddenly decided to support ODF after all (although only ODF 1.1). I'm thinking maybe we can deduce at least one reason, now two, why Microsoft might have suddenly decided to support ODF, n'est-ce pas?

Brazil says it was not allowed to present a proposal regarding legacy binary mapping at the BRM, with the excuse there was a lack of time. But others were allowed to give half-hour speeches. There was inadequate discussion, and voting wasn't done the way it should have been:

The voting rules of that meeting were not taken in accordance with ISO/IEC/JTC1 directives subclause 9.1.4. Brazil also notes that the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 was voted under ISO/IEC/JTC1 but the BRM was organized by ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC34. Even if the directives subclause 9.1.4 was intended to be used, Brazil cannot understand if the P member status considered, should be the ISO/IEC/JTC1 or the ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC34 one.

The block voting bothered Brazil. They went to discuss technical issues, not vote without a chance to discuss. Also, looking over the notes of the meeting, they don't see an objection listed that was raised.

These are serious accusations, and Brazil says the odd voting arrangement leads it to believe that the results are "inconclusive". It also protests the failure to distribute the final draft in a timely way. You might ask, as I do, why every NB is not protesting, if what Brazil writes is true. On the other hand, consider that the appeals go to the same folks who brought you the BRM, as far as I can make out. Might someone take a look at that issue, at least for the future?

Full post as published by Groklaw on May 29, 2008 (boomark / email).