With some 6,000 pages of items specifying thousands of details in Microsoft's OOXML standard, and the many thousands of hooks into Microsoft patented, licensed and copyright-controlled, proprietary and closed code, it truly begs the question, even though it is now declared an ISO standard, of who else besides Microsoft will be able to use, or want to, or even bother to use, OOXML?

Given that using it, in an IP-safe and productive manner, requires a huge investment in time understanding it, and then coding and testing to meet the protocol, and then, after completing working code, developers have to address implicit and significant IP exposure. These IP risks would require significant pre-emptive legal negotiations, licensing, cross-patenting, and even so, they may incur post-implementation legal hassles from Microsoft or one or more of it's Platinum circle of allies. Microsoft and it's corporate allies are used to having a mono-culture, with major legal leverage to enforce it. Sharing might not come as easily in practice as on paper.

This ISO 'standard', for those daring enough and rich enough to try to implement it, and this may be limited to those having a stable of IP lawyers at beck and call, may be DOA to the rest of real world IT applications developers.

Outside of Microsoft's Platinum circle, OOXML may be percieved as a Pandora's Box full of unleashed legal hazards. Hazards ensuring continued full employment of Microsoft's stable of 700 lawyers.

Most OSS developers will peceive OOXML as requiring them to jump too high of legal hurdles and too many technical ones. Microsoft will have to do a major persuassion campaign to demonstrate it may be worth it to try to leap all the high hurdles. It won't be easy, since I'm sure to most OSS developers these hurdles appear as very tall legal 'Kick-Me!' billboards.

So, if OOXML is not adopted by the non-Platinum, non-first tier vendors, and is ignored by the world's OSS developers, won't this mean that Microsoft actually ends up losing for winning? Microsoft requires developers to maintain a high interest in continued interoperation with Windows and it's Office suite, in order to profitably survive in the later 21st Century. How long until Microsoft realizes it may have successfully built, and forced upon the world, the adoption of what ends up a 6000 page IP white-elephant, or possibly a shareholder foot-gun?

Let's compare Microsoft's OOXML standard to a jet that may be yet built by several nations via controlled technology sharing, since the complexities and terms may end up quite similar. Suppose the F-22's schematics are made an ISO standard, well, at least the non-classified sections. If the average Joe developer isn't ever going to have, or want, access to the necessary classified schematic sections, or to the expensive interfacing parts--key ones only being available from single classified sources--and very proprietary, or be able to afford or have access to military grade jet fuel, why would Joe want to do so? How can Joe do so?

If Joe cares to build something that does a basic fly from point A to B office software function, Joe won't be interesting in to tying into anything as complex as that F-22 option. Joe has much easier options, fully-developed, fully-open options, ODF, available now, with little hassle to use, and with working software modules available to learn from and re-use. And if Joe's stingy clients prefer the low cost, high reliability and rapid delivery of an ODF solution, well, doesn't that mean it's a lose-lose deal for Microsoft and it's exotic OOXML?

Very good review!!! Congratulations to the writer, who have researched all the point of views.