Greetings. Though we may think of corporations as being entities unto themselves -- and in a legal sense they are in many ways -- in reality even the largest are of course actually made up of people.

If you want a way to peer into the minds and sensibilities of the folks running any particular firm, observing the methodologies that they use to try advance their agendas is at least as illuminating as looking at the resulting policies and outcomes themselves.

It's been popular for years in various quarters to bash Microsoft. Some of the criticisms are well deserved, others are not. I've personally always tried to keep as objective a keel as possible on this score.

But a theme that has frequently emerged when folks are critical of MS is the concept that Microsoft is a serial bully in its business practices. Software licenses that bully. Distribution agreements that bully. OS integration architectures that bully. And so on.

The bullying question has come up again in the context of the recent attempt by Microsoft to forcibly acquire Yahoo -- a sequence that while officially ended is viewed as only being in temporary suspended animation by many observers. And while it is undoubtedly true that mistakes by Yahoo management set the stage for the takeover attempt, the attitude of MS in this instance, even while it was obvious that the attempt itself would likely drive significant Yahoo talent to seek more stable environs, seems to carry MS' business bullying signature.

But there's a current case of MS playing hardball outside normal bounds that you may never have heard about, even though it could very well affect you negatively in the wallet and in other unfortunate ways down the line. And in some respects it's even more illuminating. As usual, MS isn't the only player involved, and while the underlying issues are rather technical, many of the associated methods would seem rather familiar to any student of the old Chicago political machine.

I won't even attempt to get into the deep details here. Head over to Google, and search for:

microsoft ooxml

... then spend the next few hours enjoying the tale in all its sordid glory. I strongly recommend doing this on an empty stomach.

The micro-synopsis is that over a number of years, a crucial ISO (International Organization for Standardization) process -- that will deeply affect how documents will be edited, manipulated, processed, and published -- has essentially been hijacked by Microsoft.

Microsoft's goal has been to make their own grossly bloated (6500+ pages!) and in many ways flawed "OOXML" document format the standard for the foreseeable future, instead of the existing, much more reasonably sized, and easily extensible Open Document Format (ODF). Document formats matter. They have impacts on everything from portability, to privacy, to the costs associated with word processing software and systems.

You've gotta be careful when reading the many sources you'll find on the OOXML topic -- and keeping events in chronological order is crucial. The plotline has more twists and turns than Colossal Cave, and more ways to confuse than cheap vodka.

My favorite character in the story is the gigantic OOXML document format itself, which might be classified as a deadly weapon if printed and then dropped from a low-flying aircraft.

Unnecessarily massive and complex specs are bad enough, but when the time to review such abominations is reduced to ridiculously short periods as in this case, the circumstances border on the Twilight Zone -- or late night legislative dealings in Congress -- take your pick. Blind everyone with volume, make sure there isn't time to properly read and analyze the material, then ram it all home for approval. "Fairness? We don't need no stinkin' fairness!"

And remember, if it looks like you're going to lose a key approval vote, be sure to use whatever underhanded techniques are necessary to win. In Chicago, the traditional method of choice was to make sure that every man, woman, child, and even deceased citizens would register the "proper" vote -- ideally multiple times in each election. In Microsoft's OOXML world, the parallel approach is to arrange for emerging countries that previously had no apparent interest in the proceedings to suddenly appear, vote for the Microsoft side, then conveniently vanish back into standards obscurity -- a procedural coup that is currently the subject of official protests filed with the ISO.

At this late stage of the game, it appears difficult to derail the OOXML blunderbuss, though with such wide support for the much more sensible ODF format by institutions around the world, it's just possible that the end result may not be quite the steamroller effect in terms of OOXML uptake that Microsoft has been counting on.

But this entire affair most certainly represents a teachable moment -- something of an x-ray image of Microsoft's soul -- or rather the souls of its management, since as I noted at the outset, even Microsoft is made of people -- but then again, so was Soylent Green.

If those people wish to play fair, all the more power to them. However, if they choose to play fast, play loose, and play the bully in their dealings with the international technical community, you end up with organizations and individuals much less worthy of our respect and patronage -- both now and in any future considerations and deliberations.

--Lauren--