[beagle3]

> So, for the past 15 years or so, Microsoft's behavior has been far better than average for the software industry.

OOXML happened in 2006. Android racket is still going on. Proxy fight against linux through SCO (yes, MS financed it) went through 2010.

Microsoft can only be considered ethical in comparison to Oracle. But then, anything is ethical compared to Oracle.

[scholia]

Ah, I didn't realize "ethical" just meant things you don't like.

> OOXML happened in 2006.

Standard technique re committees, and Microsoft isn't the first to use it. However, on balance, it was a good thing to do. Frankly, I don't see how any sensible person can object to the opening up and standardization of ubiquitous file formats (and again, that's a common industry move). It's good for users.

> Android racket is still going on.

Microsoft was one of the pioneers of desktop computing and desktop Unix, so I can believe it has some IP (though I don't know what it is).

Monetizing your IP is a standard American practice, in which IBM has long been a world leader. I wouldn't expect the US DoJ to disapprove of it. Indeed, it appears the whole US legal, economic and political systems encourage it.

> Proxy fight against linux through SCO (yes, MS financed it) went through 2010.

Which Microsoft didn't finance.

[beagle3]

> Ah, I didn't realize "ethical" just meant things you don't like.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unaware of what was going on. I've attached references so that you can educate yourself. If you think they are wrong, please have the courtesy to provide references that counter these.

> However, on balance, it was a good thing to do.

What exactly was a good thing to do? Stacking ISO committees with inactive members[0], that took years to clear so the committees went back to function? (No, that's not standard practice). Or was the good thing ignoring requests to join the OASIS ODF standardization process? Or was it the actual OOXML "standard" itself, which is so convoluted that at the time it was published, no software (Including Microsoft Office) supported it, and in general, no software CAN really support it because it has settings like[1] "auto space like word 95", which is not specified anywhere except in the Word 95 source code? It's not a standard, it's a joke, and it's a mockery any community process. And I've been on committees before - politics is rampant, but what Microsoft did is not.

> Microsoft was one of the pioneers of desktop computing and desktop Unix, so I can believe it has some IP (though I don't know what it is).

You were saying microsoft has changed and has been better than most companies for the last few years. I would say this contradicts your position. It is no worse than IBM or Oracle, but that doesn't make Microsoft ethical.

> Which Microsoft didn't finance.

"The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”[2]

[0] http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080825162905... and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08...

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=OOXML+%22auto+space+like+wor...

[2] http://techrights.org/2010/05/25/microsoft-sco-and-then-acac...

[scholia]

Anybody who seriously references anything from techrights is so deluded as to be beyond argument. Sorry.

[beagle3]

What can I say, you have the winning argument. It also totally trumps groklaw and hundreds of independent google results.