I was surprised to see published in the Groklaw a link to a document from Microsoft that describes the marketing strategy used by them. This document was made public on during the process Comes v. Microsoft (antitrust)

The document in question describes the “Effective Evangelism” dates from 1997 (yep, they’ve got us using a 10 years old trick !!!).

The point I would like to draw the attention on the document is regarding the use of “independent consultants”, and further on the use of so-called “NEUTRAL” (in the document the strategy is explained to be used on discussions and panels, but it was used as is in NBs, because all the work there, in theory, was debating…).

Regarding the independent consultants, I think the text is self explanatory and illustrates the reason so many people “independent” in the market supporta Microsoft.

Regarding the NEUTRAL ones, I’m really surprized to see a so clear explanation about the NEUTRAL participation at NBs, and in some countries which I followed the discussions, the NEUTRAL participation was decisive to the YES vote.

Many have asked me in recent days (including several journalists) if the strategy of committee stuffing with business partners was not very weak and easy to identify. I could not give a very good answer for that because if I reveal the whole story and its details, I might be accusing people without evidence. With this document in hand I can now explain it so well didactic, without accusing anyone or be accused of distorting the facts .

Of course, in countries where the committees were filled with commercial partners, the glaring distortions would be too much evident and the process would go to a huge scandal (in fact, this really happened on some countries, but who cares ?). To avoid this, strategy used by Microsoft was to include “ITS NEUTRAL” in several committees (including here, Brazil).

This strategy clarified the roles and positions of the members of committees, but left an enormous question in relation to the NEUTRAL (usually representatives of public or private universities and on rare cases, representatives of governmental institutions). In some cases, those NEUTRAL came to discuss and remain in a “neutral position” throughout the whole process, even giving the impression that they would do an technical analysis or would have a technical postition at the end of the process, but when it was needed the final vote, they voted for the APPROVAL of the specification (and I quote here the final vote, the March one… everything was very well planned and executed).

This excerpt of the document mentions the “independent consultants” when speaking about panel discussions in debates:

“… *Our mission is to establish Microsoft’s platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry*…. “… * Our mission is to establish Microsoft’s platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry *….

Working behind the scenes to orchestrate independent” praise of our technology, and *damnation of the enemy’s*, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. Working behind the scenes to orchestrate independent “praise of our technology, and * damnation of the enemy’s *, is a key function evangelism during the Slog.

“Independent” analyst’s report hould be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent” analyst’s report hould be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them).

*”Independent” consultants* should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available or just $200/hour)…” * “Independent” consultants * should write columns and articles, give presentations and conference moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available or just $ 200/hour)… “

This excerpt of the document mentions the “academic neutral” ones:

“…*”Independent” academic sources* should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). “… *” Independent “academic sources * should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted).

“Independent” courseware providers hould start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. “Independent” courseware providers hould start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage…” Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage… “

This excerpt of the document describes the “market neutral” ones:

 “… A *stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral , but who are in act strong supporters of our technology *. “… A * stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in act strong supporters of our technology *.

The key to stacking a panel is being able to *choose the moderator*. The key to stacking the panel is being able to choose the moderator * *. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win.

Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “ independent ISVs ” on the panel. Since you can not expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. *No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed – just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.”* Sounds marvelously independent doesn’t it? * No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed - just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” * Sounds marvelously independent does not it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.” Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands. “

Finally, the excerpt below, describes how to find the “ideal” moderator for the debates (and this explains how some committees coordinators were elected all around the world):

“…Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. “… Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best sources of pliable moderators are: The best sources of pliable moderators are:

- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that’s their business model. — Analysts: Analysts sell out - that’s their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. — Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but do not let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference  organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, panel whenever the opportunity comes up. Since he’s well- known, but apparently independent, he’ll be accepted – one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right? Since he’s well-known, but apparently independent, he’ll be accepted - one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right? …”

When I in a previous post I’ve said that was necessary the list of organizations that were parts of the committees, now I think it is extremely important, because only with that we can clearly identify the business partners of Microsoft and the NEUTRAL that supported this vote.

I’ve decided to write this post because I think it’s a huge lack of ethics what these people have done. They used the name of serious and respected institutions for personal profit, legitimizing themselves through institutions considered solid and reliable. They used the name of respected organizations to hide their lack of scruple, and in some cases did it without the knowledge of the board of directors of those institutions that has the name used. Most of those directors and board members are even aware of what has happened (the cloak of secrecy attacks again).

This is just more one of the corruption mechanisms that has been used worldwide in this analysis, now demonstrably a real market strategy rather than the “impression of someone”. This nonsense fact only succeeded on account of the absurd secrecy that exists in most NBs.

If a NB decides and responds on behalf of a nation, all its discussion and all its members must be of public knowledge. This lack of transparency is what allows aberrations as those occur.

Transparency now and a severe investigation on what occurred in NBs worldwide. The ISO and IEC cannot continue “pretending” that those facts didn’t existed: no arguments against facts !!!