It was a truly brilliant idea, infusing the one of the most creative research groups with the top technological institution, in an experiment to discover how such a union could benefit the educational process.

After Microsoft and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) wrapped up their symposium “Learning Without Barriers/Technology Without Borders”, it marked the culmination of a seven-year collaboration between the two.

Microsoft Research has invested over $25 million in The MIT-Microsoft iCampus Research Alliance for Educational Technology since it’s creation, and has enlisted the assistance of over 400 faculty members, students, and researchers.

In addition, 5,000 students participated in content that was enhanced by iCampus; generating more than 70 published academic papers based on iCampus research.

“This is the largest investment we’ve made into this type of program at an academic institution,” Sailesh Chutani, director of Microsoft’s External Research & Programs Group stated.

According to a Microsoft press release, iCampus programs include “classroom exercises powered by Tablet PCs, to remotely accessible laboratories that give students access 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to archived classroom materials, soccer-playing robots, annotated multimedia Shakespeare courses, GPS-tracked shuttle systems and a host of other applications that have enhanced the academic lives of students and teachers alike.”

One particularly innovative breakthrough is the Classroom Learning Project, which enables instructors in large classrooms to annotate their Power Point presentations simultaneously on both the screen, well as tablet PC’s distributed to students prior to the lesson.

MIT being the institution that it is, students are naturally interested in robotics and artificial intelligence. Another iCampus project created soccer-playing robots, which compete in at both the national and international levels in “Robo Cup”.

Other highlights of the project include International Genetically Engineered Machine Competitions (IGEM), MIT Online Assessment Tool (iMoat), Remote Online Laboratories (iLab), Natural Interaction, and Cross Media Annotation System (XMAS).

Along with the many technological innovations produced by the union, MIT and Microsoft hope to have left a lasting mark on the face of education.

Chutani, of Microsoft, states, “The iCampus experience has given us very interesting insights into what works and doesn’t work with regard to technology in academia. We expect to see a lot of activity as other institutions examine the results of this work and begin building on it.”

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Autmn Davis is a staff writer for WebProNews covering ebusiness and technology.

In it, the legislature was attempting a major blow to Microsoft Office, by mandating the use of open source document software, in order to provide a standardized, non-proprietary and non-royalty based document format. They settled on the Open Document Format, or ODF, supported by OpenOffice and StarOffice, which would cost Microsoft untold millions in sales, but, more importantly, could start a nationwide move towards ODF, and a move away from market leader MS Office.

Well, Microsoft has avoided all that. The state IT Division, citing accessibility needs, has decided to stick with Microsoft Office in the near-term. See, while Office requires a plugin to support ODF, it does have excellent support for those with disabilities, while OpenOffice and StarOffice, while natively supporting ODF, do not have those accessibility features, and will not have them by the January 2007 deadline.

This pretty much puts the move away from Microsoft Office in reverse. Microsoft now has a powerful footing (and if you don’t believe me, ask any legislator how powerful disability advocates can be), and can continue to develop Office with this in mind. They can insure Office has the most powerful accessibility features, and widen their support of ODF, and thus hold onto their massive market lead.

A bit of advice: Office 2007′s file formats are secretly ZIP files (just change the extension). Why not have an option to include the ODF version in those ZIP containers, ensuring that governments can use Office’s own file formats, but include a universal version for those who need it. Don’t make it a default, but something IT departments can force if necessary, and everyone gets the best of both worlds.

(via Slashdot)

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Nathan Weinberg writes the popular InsideGoogle blog, offering the latest news and insights about Google and search engines.

Visit the InsideGoogle blog.

This could be the final bell in the bout between Microsoft and the state of Massachusetts over file formats. Microsoft announced the initiation of the Open XML Translator project, where they and partners will create tools to enable users of the Office productivity suite to do something Microsoft had resisted for some time: save files in OpenDocument Format (ODF) filetypes.

The announcement has to be cast within the context of Microsoft’s ongoing battles with the state of Massachusetts over document formats. The State had called for replacing proprietary file formats with open ones to ensure electronic document preservation.

Microsoft stated it would not enable ODF compatibility for Office. The prospect of Massachusetts tossing out thousands of copies of Office in favor of an ODF-compatible product posed a considerable financial issue for Microsoft.

In May 2006, Massachusetts issued a request for information for an OpenDocument Format Plug-in for Microsoft Office Suite. That may have led to Microsoft’s formal support of developing one.

Microsoft did take a jab at ODF in its statement announcing the Translator project. They present Open XML as a more comprehensive solution to file formatting issues, while claiming “ODF focuses on more limited requirements.”

When developed, the Translator tools will be freely available under open source licenses. A prototype of the Translator plug-in for Word 2007 has been made available under a BSD license.

—

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

A battle between Massachusetts technology staffers who want to free the state from proprietary document formats and the world’s biggest technology company looks ready to explode into more sharp words and who knows what else.

Massachusetts has posted their request for information to Comm-PASS, a site maintained for the solicitation of proposals and bids from contractors seeking business with the state. Details of the request read as follows:

Microsoft has resisted enabling that compatibility in Office itself. They have been battling with Massachusetts for nearly three years over that compatibility.

Those battles have forced the former advocate for the change, Peter Quinn, to resign his position as state CIO. However, Governor Mitt Romney promptly appointed a new CIO and promised to back him at implementing Open Document Format initiatives in the state.

Last September, the sparring took an odd turn when Jim Prendergast, executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership, wrote an opinion piece for Fox News criticizing the ODF movement. Prendergast claimed it would be a burden to taxpayers.

Prendergast’s position became undermined when it was revealed that Microsoft funds Americans for Technology Leadership. Fox News quickly added that missing disclaimer to the article when it came to light.

Now another organization has taken up the fight against Massachusetts. The Initiative for Software Choice, with a stated mission of “promoting neutral government procurement, standards and public R&D policies for software,” criticized Massachusetts’ ODF initiative, but not the plug-in request, in a statement posted to its website:

ISC, of course, counts Microsoft as a founder, a revelation that should be of no surprise to anyone following the Microsoft vs Massachusetts kerfuffle.

—
Tag:

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

Email Spat Between Lawyers Gets Noticed

Lawyer-oriented TV shows like “Boston Legal” have nothing on the real-life weirdness in Massachusetts legal circles. A host of blogs and websites, including Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, have carried the saga of an email exchange between a job applicant and an employer. The Boston Globe confirmed the exchange really did take place.

Dianna Abdala applied for a position with a criminal law firm run by William Korman. He was impressed enough with her to offer her a job after one meeting. Then he met with her again at his office to say he wanted to hire two lawyers instead of just one, and would have to cut the salary offered.

After giving it some more thought, Abdala dropped an email in his inbox, declining the job offer and citing the salary as the reason. “After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you,” she wrote.

Korman emailed her back, expressing surprise at her rejection and complaining about the method in which it was sent. Still, he wished her the best for her future despite having made arrangements for her employment by ordering business cards and setting up email accounts. Instead of just letting it go, Abdala decided to take a shot at him in reply regarding those arrangements.

“A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so. Again, thank you.”

Woops.

It seems Korman is a ten-year veteran of the bar, and well-regarded within the profession. Mass. Lawyers Weekly picked it up from there:

Now, the email exchange has received a celebrity status of its own, having made the rounds first of numerous law firms, then to the inboxes of people outside the profession, to the blogosphere, and then the Boston Globe.

That’s a lot of mileage for “bla bla bla.” It’s also a prime example of why one should never say something in email that they will seriously regret if it becomes public.

—

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

StarOffice ended its beta test of version 8 almost six months ago, and Sun will finally make it available tomorrow. The New York Times reports that Sun will comply with requests from some of its bigger customers to include compatibility with Office features like spreadsheet macros in Excel.

The new suite should price at $99.95 for the boxed version, with a discount for downloaders. In the article, Sun notes this will be the first commercial suite on the market with native support for the OpenDocument format.

That support has proven a contentious point for Microsoft in its negotiations with the state of Massachusetts. The Old Bay State wants documents created or saved by its workers to be done so in OpenDocument format, which Microsoft has stated it will not support.

The impact of that decision goes beyond just the state government. Vendors and other parties who could live with Office compatibility while having OpenDocument support on their desktops could be inclined to eschew future Microsoft Office upgrades.

Sun isn’t the only company to try for some of that open standards business. IBM has similar designs on gaining at Microsoft’s expense, and supports OpenDocument with its client/server Workplace suite.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.

The new policy would require all state agencies to acquire open standard software, like Open Document Format (ODF), by January 2007.

“It is bad procurement policy for any state to unilaterally lock itself into one set of technologies,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said.

“Agencies should be able to accept bids from any company that can provide the desired product or service. Government earns the best value for taxpayer dollars through a competitive, transparent, and accountable bidding process.”

The nonprofit, nonpartisan group complains that though the state aims to eliminate the costs associated with patents and licensing of proprietary software like Word Perfect, Lotus Notes, and Microsoft Office, the cost of retraining government staff and technical support workers statewide outweighs the dollars saved by switching to open-source platforms.

“The proposed shift in software will be paid for by the taxpayers, businesses, and regular citizens of Massachusetts,” said Schatz.

A decision by the state of Massachusetts to require its agencies to “create and save” electronic documents in the non-proprietary Open Document format has led to an angry exchange of words between the state and Microsoft.

Microsoft does not support the format and has no plans to do so, citing issues with supporting older Office document formats when the next version of Office emerges. The company has spent two years battling with the state over document formats.

The problem has come to a crossroads, as Massachusetts released its Enterprise Technical Reference Model for comments and included the requirement that its agencies begin planning for a transition, scheduled to start on January 1, 2007. It would be a big shift, and a big financial change. An undisclosed portion of the $100 million the state spends annually on info technology goes toward software, according to InformationWeek.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.

If it’s an electronic document, it has to be “created and saved” in an open format by 2007 in Massachusetts. The state recently updated its Enterprise Technical Reference Model to reflect this requirement:

Further in the document, the State defines that format as the OpenDocument format, supported by products like OpenOffice and Star Office. Massachusetts wants to preserve its electronic documents without fear of a proprietary standard being discontinued in the future. It has told state agencies to begin planning for the change:

A Microsoft executive told the Financial Times that the state should think about the price of making that change. “I think it would be pretty risky for the state of Massachusetts to go in a direction like this without a clear look at the costs first,” said Alan Yates, general manager of the Office division at Microsoft. “It would seem to me that before taking such a big shift, they would look into it further.”

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.

As reported in Out-Law.com, State Attorney State Attorney General Thomas Reilly warned that Microsoft’s proposed Longhorn operating system, which looks to employ a desktop search engine “could amount to a new abuse of its desktop dominance.”

Reilly went on to claim that the 2002 settlement between Microsoft and US Justice Department is not restoring competition. He plans on investigating whether or not Longhorn’s search engine inclusion would violate this agreement.

WebProNews | Breaking eBusiness News
Your source for investigative ebusiness reporting and breaking news.