IBM: Standards and Double Standards

IBM's Rob Weir does it again. What's to be done when your company is caught patenting methods implemented in an open standard for years? Change the subject in an attempt to kill the messenger who bears the news. Score another vitriolic ad hominem attack for Rob Weir. 

Now we learn that IBM's Rob Weir can't stand the heat of his own most frequently deployed weapon in debate with those who want less interop talk from IBM and more interop walk. See other quotes and links in this group."Calling names is boorish and unprofessional," he pronounces. A great quote to replay the next time Rob wilds the ad hominem fallacy as his weapon.  

Here, IBM's Rob Weir takes OOXML to task for not specifying scripts and macros. But nary a mention of the fact that OpenDocument suffers from the same weakness. Yet another IBM double standard. He also tacks on an ad hominem attack against Gary Edwards, in lieu of addressing the merits of what Edwards said.

In the comments on Groklaw to its republication of his ODF Lies and Whispers article, IBM's Rob Weir portrays himself as being "accurate and trustworthy." Yet on this page of Alex Brown's blog that rebuts his Lies and Whispers article, Weir has been caught lying in the comments section and his Lies and Whispers article has dissembled as Weir ducks, bobs, and weaves rather offering any persuasive evidence of his article's truth. http://www.adjb.net/post/No-one-supports-ISO-ODF-today.aspx

Here we find IBM's Rob Weir condemning less than the "whole truth," advocating public exposure as the best remedy for lies, and observing that "[m]ore people are willing to lie than face of [sic] consequences of being caught lying." These statements may be usefully contrasted with Weir's actual practice in relevant regard. See e.g., the dismantling of a key fact in his same article in the blog post and comments here. http://www.adjb.net/post/No-one-supports-ISO-ODF-today.aspx Also notice there just how far Weir goes to avoid telling the "whole truth" in his own comments.

Here we learn two things about IBM's Rob Weir. First, score another ad hominem attack for him because of his innuendo suggesting that Rick Jelliffe and Alex Brown are liars. Second, we learn that Mr. Weir expects a retraction to be made when inaccurate statements are brought to a blog author's attention. Having been recently outed for rewriting history to call Alex Brown and Wikipedia names and having confessed to silently editing his blog in relevant regard, will Mr. Weir correct his own blog article? See http://www.adjb.net/post/No-one-supports-ISO-ODF-today.aspx and Weir's confession in the comments on that page. Or are retractions yet another case of an IBM double standard?

Rob Weir gets caught in another deceit and an apparent attempt to rewrite history. He condemns as Microsoft FUD what turns out to be his own statement, since removed from his web site but still preserved on other sites that quoted his article including Groklaw, which republished Weir's later article and called for an antitrust investigation of the Microsoft FUD Weir complained of. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009061001520015 That call is somewhat problematic when Weir and Groklaw were the original sources of the information. Dare the world hope for retractions?

Rob Weir racks up another ad hominem attack, this time against Rick Jelliffe.

Gareth Horton offers a satirical view of IBMer Rob Weir's recent arguments but captures the dilemma Weir's arguments put developers in.

The appeal to belief fallacy is one of IBM's most frequently deployed weapons in regard to office document format standards, perhaps most egregiously when the beliefs were manufactured from whole cloth by IBM's propaganda campaigns. For example, IBM trades heavily on the ODF Inteoperability Myth, a false belief created by an IBM disinformation campaign.

In 2007, IBM's Rob Weir roundly criticized OOXML because the principle justification for having a largely duplicative international standard was compatibility with the billions of extant legacy Microsoft Office documents in binary formats, yet the specifications for the binary formats were not included in the OOXML specification. Just how committed IBM management was to that position may be seen in the fact that IBM later instigated an antitrust investigation of Microsoft Office by the E.U.'s DG Competition through the European Committee on Interoperable Systems, alleging monopoly abuse by Microsoft on the same grounds, an investigation still ongoing. \n\nIn this blog post comment, IBM's Rob Weir takes a hard line position that the sufficiency of the OOXML standard's specificity must be determined on the basis of what is stated in the standard itself, as opposed to Microsoft's subsequent recoding of Office to remove compatibility defects between Microsoft's implementation of OOXML and the binary formats.\n\nThe quoted passage may be usefully compared to later IBM arguments and actions in regard to the OpenDocument.standard that will be included in later bookmarks. For example, Weir has been unyielding that vendor-defined extensions to the ODF standard must be classified as conformant in ODF 1.2, yet their specifications are definitionally not part of the ODF specification. As another example, in 2009 Weir attacked Microsoft for having implemented ODF 1.1 using formula markup different from that used by OOo, despite ODF 1.1's lack of specifications for spreadsheet formulas. Weir's rationale: that vendors must collaborate to code around holes in the standard. He came very close to arguing that data gaps in a standard are irrelevant. See e.g., http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/battle-for-odf-interoperability.html \n\nHypothesis: IBM's treats ODF as a double standard rather than a standard. What IBM argues in effect is that what is required for OOXML does not apply

As will be seen in other bookmarks, one of IBM staffers' frequently employed tactics is the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Often, the IBM fallacious argument takes the form of suggestions or innuendos that a speaker is biased by their employer's identity or innuendos suggesting that someone is acting in an IBM competitor's interests.

Here, we learn that Rob Weir understands that ad hominem attacks are usually a fallacy, a way of changing the subject rather than addressing the merits of what was said. We may therefore deduce that when Rob Weir employs the ad hominem attack himself, he does so knowing that he is arguing a fallacy.

Here on a single page, we see several Rob Weir ad hominem attacks, including his ad hominem circumstantial innuendo suggesting that Alex Bown's motive in writing a bug report is to defend Microsoft's implementation of ODF. There is also a notable accusation that Brown is intentionally misleading his readers, which attacks Brown's honesty.

The ad hominem fallacy is a tactic frequently employed by IBM and its followers, most notably by Rob Weir, against those who disagree with IBM's positions and goals. Those who advocate for repairing the badly broken ODF standard or prepare bug reports on that standard are among the most frequently targeted victims of IBM's ad hominem fallacy attacks.

As will be seen in other bookmarks, many IBM staffers' arguments relevant to office document format specifications have been based on variations of the ad hominem fallacy, more commonly known as the "personal attack." .

Here we learn that when it comes to OOXML IBM's Rob Weir says that it is those in control of the data formats who control interoperability. But one may usefully juxtapose that view with Weir's statements that it's Microsoft's fault for breaking interoperability in its implementation of ODF 1.1 formulas. Weir had it right the first time; it's those who control the data formats who control interoperability. And that places the responsibility for the ODF 1.1 interop mess squarely at the feet of the IBM and Sun-dominated ODF TC. So we have yet another IBM double standard. One truth when it's OOXML being discussed but its opposite when it is ODF subjected to examination.