[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DG Competition requests information from competitors about Word, Excel, Ecma 376
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4GPYA7R4Xy4&refer=home> So let's see: JTC1 is fast tracking Ecma 376 whilst the European DG Competition is investigating whether Ecma 376 violates the antitrust laws because of non-disclosure of technology needed to implement it. Could this be any more embarrassing for ISO and JTC-1? And just how precisely might ISO give meaning to the following guidance from the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade? "2.2 Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not **prepared,** adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. ..." <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/tbt_01_e.htm#article2A> If such standards are not even to be "prepared," does the new JTC-1 Directive section allowing draft standards to be processed despite contradictions comply with the treaty? And isn't the fact that a duplicative draft standard is being "prepared" slowing the uptake of the existing standard? And if so, does that not have "the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade?" One could reasonably argue, I think, that every operating environment error message upon attempting to open an OpenDocument file informing the user that "file type not recognized" is an "unnecessary obstacle to international trade." Hence there is a strong argument that Ecma 376 should not be "prepared" as an international standard. Best regards, Marbux
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]