Microsoft's misstep in Sweden unfortunate

Apparently I missed a big Microsoft story while vacationing the week before Labor Day.

Reporters pounced on the news that Microsoft was apologizing for a flap in Sweden, where an employee inappropriately offered companies marketing support to influence their vote on a technical standard. Is Microsoft up to its old tricks? Could it be that the Colossus of Redmond wasn't chastened by a decade of antitrust oversight, and it's still bullying and conniving the tech industry?

Why else would newspapers suddenly care about the proceedings of the ISO JTC1 standards committee?

What a time to be off digging clams.

If you missed it, the story revolves around a document format Microsoft wants adopted as an international standard. There's already an open-source document standard, and its backers think Microsoft is trying to further the dominance of its Office software.

Standards are important, and the way they're developed says a lot about the companies involved.

Theoretically, standards ensure different products will work together. They also influence whose technology will be used the most.

Document standards are especially hot now, as new, Web-connected ways of doing business are developed. Instead of creating documents on the desktop and e-mailing them, we're increasingly working online and collaborating on files updated via the Web.

The standards body — which resembles the legislative gatherings in "Star Wars" — voted down Microsoft's proposal, but there will be another vote after it's reworked.

Meanwhile, what should we make of the Swedish flap? Was it an isolated misstep, or a revelation of deeper problems with Microsoft?

Did rivals highlight the story? They're gearing up for another round of antitrust battles, and it revives the Microsoft-as-bully storyline.

In the U.S., they're pushing to extend Microsoft's antitrust oversight. In Europe, they've filed a complaint about Office.

I asked Brad Smith, Microsoft's chief lawyer, if he thought opponents were drawing attention to the flap. Smith didn't think so, but he's playing serious chess: He thought opponents were expecting Microsoft to win the vote, giving the rivals more ammo for the European complaint.

If opponents were hoping the story would drum up resentment of Microsoft in the U.S., they chose a poor example. Partisan insiders may be outraged, but it's too esoteric to arouse average folks.

There's no obvious victim, like Netscape, to suggest Microsoft is stifling innovative new companies. If anything, the public thinks Silicon Valley's current stars are trampling Microsoft, and Steve Jobs is the one who needs a spanking.

Could Microsoft still be finding ways to bend the rules, despite the legal oversight in and around the company? Is it that desperate to maintain its grip into the next generation of computing?

The company is more interested in working with than against governing bodies. Steve Ballmer wants to win just as much as Bill Gates, but Ballmer is more focused on how the company is perceived.

Another take is that Microsoft's online strategy is finally crystallizing, and rivals are getting nervous.

That makes the Swedish shenanigans even more inexcusable, because they justify rivals asking governments to hold Microsoft back.

Brier Dudley's column appears Mondays. Reach him at 206-515-5687 or bdudley@seattletimes.com.