Yeah it is a good direction to go toward, Microsoft is trying to beat them to the punch with their next Office release. As the files will be open source. Figures... 
A
partially open format. Microsoft is using a "standards" organization (ECMA) that is reputed to rubber stamp their submitters proposals. Microsoft is not allowing anyone else to review/revise the "standard". The "standard" has openings in it that are not going to be specified. Open Source programs (like Open Office.org) can't use Microsofts proposed "standard". No guarantee from Microsoft that future revisions they make will be public. There was also a limitation (perhaps since removed) in Microsofts license limiting it to open and read (not edit or create) government documents (not corporate or personal). Microsofts commitment not to sue you for implementing their standard only applies if you implement it 100% - no extensions, modifications or subsets.
ODF on the other hand was developed by an open body (OASIS). Members were responsible for finding faults and suggesting improvements. Microsoft was a member of OASIS and could have taken part to any degree that they chose. They were involved in ODFs development so if they had problems with it they had adequate time to object to flaws from their perspective.
Finally the standard won't be ready by Massachusetts date for adoption. Why should Massachusetts wait while Microsoft creates a new standard instead of adopting one that is currently out there and being adopted by several makers of office software?
Office is one of Microsofts 2 big money makers (Windows is the other). Where Microsoft makes their money is on upgrades to maintain compatibility. Upgrades that change the file format and require substantial efforts to update all existing files that may be needed in the future under future versions of MS-Office. Microsofts business model requires the format to change constantly to make you continually pay them for new versions.
You might like to read
this long article on Massachusetts adoption of ODF and Microsofts part in it.
From the article:Quinn also addressed accusations that Massachusetts' decision to exclude Microsoft's file formats are in someway connected to the antitrust litigation that took place between the two and that the standard was designed to manipulate the state's procurement process in a way that prevents the purchase of Microsoft Office. "We picked an open standard which has nothing to do with any vendor whatsoever. We're not trying to climb into bed with any single vendor and this is not about procurement," Quinn told me. "We had [Microsoft] in and we let them know what our thinking was. In late July, we told them that we're going to be adopting the OASIS standard and asked them for their support. We've had many constructive conversations with Microsoft. But it's their choice [not to support the standard] we picked. We're not trying to lock them out."
Topic: Annoucement of the formation of the ODF Alliance. (Read 2206 times)