David Berlind writes an exhaustive account of Massachusetts’s decision to exclude Microsoft’s Office document formats from those approved for use by state employees and contractors. (I wrote about this decision in an earlier post.) He looks in particular at Microsoft’s claim that it was a “naive” victim of a rigged process. In examining the state’s procedures, Berlind finds some evidence of possible anti-Microsoft bias, particularly in the different ways that Sun and Microsoft appear to have been treated at one point. But he also shows that Microsoft’s focus on process irregularities is something of a smokescreen. Massachusetts has made it clear that it is amenable to changing its decision if Microsoft alters its format licensing terms to meet the state’s definition of openness. Microsoft, Berlind’s report makes clear, has no intention of making the necessary changes, rendering its complaints about the process moot. As Berlind writes, “When Massachusetts put the ball in Microsoft’s court so openly and publicly by giving it multiple ways to address the state’s needs and continuing to leave those doors open, any and all claims of impropriety became non-issues.”

Beyond the process complaints, Microsoft makes two claims. First, it says that its licensing terms are at least as open as those governing the two document formats that the state has approved: OpenDocument (ODF) and Adobe’s PDF. Second, it claims that its licensing terms meet the state’s three-pronged definition of an open format:

-It must be published and subject to peer review

-It must be subject to joint stewardship

-It must have no or absolutely minimal legal restrictions attached to it

In a meticulous examination of a very fuzzy subject (software licensing), Berlind shows that on both of these counts Microsoft’s argument is shaky. Microsoft’s licensing terms seem more restrictive than those of OpenDocument and PDF, and they seem to fall short of the state’s openness tests. You may take issue with the state’s tests, but it’s hard to take issue with its application of them.

So why won’t Microsoft give in? If it’s committed to openness in its document formats, why won’t it just accept the state’s definition of openness? It seems clear that Microsoft believes it has strong strategic interests in keeping certain restrictions on the intellectual property contained in its Office document formats. My belief is that those interests have a lot to do with ensuring, over the long run, that customers will continue to face substantial switching costs in abandoning Office for alternative programs. Microsoft’s interests are valid ones – Office, after all, is an extraordinary profit machine for the company and its shareholders – but they happen to be in conflict with the interests of the government of Massachusetts. It doesn’t seem likely that Microsoft will be able to resolve this conflict by simply stamping its feet.