Bill Kearney wrote:
>> Microsoft shouldn't have confused the market with OOXML.
>>     
>
> Um, no.  More like Open Office shouldn't be piggybacking a lame clone on
> Microsoft's efforts.  If you're going to use ridiculous arguments you might
> as well get them right.
>   
Well... we don't really need to rehash the whole 
who-do-we-thank-for-word processors / spreadsheets thing.  I used 
WordStar in 1982, WordPerfect later, Visicalc in DOS, etc.  There are 
only so many ways (so far) to do a word processor or a spreadsheet, and 
the only real innovation that stands out was the original Visicalc.

Microsoft has been paid more than enough for Office and Windows.  That a 
substantial competitor as OO can come into existence and grow is simply 
a symptom of the pervasive market for office apps.  The reality is that 
in a proper market, something that is a commodity should have commodity 
pricing, which for software means, eventually, free.  Office apps, for 
nearly everyone, are a commodity.

My argument was not ridiculous: OO is a brand in the market, registered 
or not, just as WinXp or other informal shorthands for Microsoft 
products are.  It may not have a strong corporation ready to defend it's 
place in the market to avoid confusion, but that doesn't invalidate my 
recognizing it for what it is.

sdw