The world’s ability to communicate with one another is a key factor in its rapid evolution and economic growth. The Esperanto language was invented last century as a politically neutral language that would foster peace and international understanding. Since the launch, we’ve seen first-hand the benefits of a constructed language:
We expect even more communication between people in the coming year and are therefore focusing our investments in languages that are created based on constructed language principles. To that end, we are changing the spoken and written language of this nation to make it consistent with the form of speech already supported by the Language Creation Society. Specifically, we are supporting the Esperanto and Klingon languages, and will consider adding support for other high-quality constructed languages in the future. Though English plays an important role in speech today, as our goal is to enable open innovation, its further use as a form of communication in this country will be prohibited and our resources directed towards languages that are untainted by real-world usage.
These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give citizens using other languages an opportunity to translate the libraries of the world into Esperanto.
Microsoft and its employees talking about openness? EPIC FAIL
hypocrite hypocrite hypocrite...
Yeah as others have stated, your analogy is flawed.
People are free to use, share, modify, and share their modifications of the English language without worry about copyrights, patents or licensing fees.
Nice try though.
Ok ! when Esperanto will adopt a male sufixe (ex. : ic" or other) as "in" for femelle one for stop its underlying and shameful sexism.
Your analogy is perfect: Microsoft would like to apply the same colonial politics of anglophone countries towards the other languages of the worlds, just like European did with indios people after America's discovery, in the softwares business. Because Google doesn't want to kneel down in front of Microsoft supremacy, like esperantists refuse to do with English, you mock Mountain View, forgetting an interesting precedent: David and Goliath, a.k.a. the strength of reasons.
Yeah, Microsoft is all about open standards . . .
Excerpts from the FINDINGS OF FACT in USA vs. Microsoft Corporation:
66. Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers — and in inducing them to behave in ways — that augment and prolong that monopoly power.
Withholding Crucial Technical Information
90. Microsoft knew that Netscape needed certain critical technical information and assistance in order to complete its Windows 95 version of Navigator in time for the retail release of Windows 95. Indeed, Netscape executives had made a point of requesting this information, especially the so-called Remote Network Access ("RNA") API, at the June 21 meeting. Specifically, Microsoft representative J. Allard had told Barksdale that the way in which the two companies concluded the meeting would determine whether Netscape received the RNA API immediately or in three months.
91. Although Netscape declined the special relationship with Microsoft, its executives continued, over the weeks following the June 21 meeting, to plead for the RNA API. Despite Netscape's persistence, Microsoft did not release the API to Netscape until late October, i.e., as Allard had warned, more than three months later. The delay in turn forced Netscape to postpone the release of its Windows 95 browser until substantially after the release of Windows 95 (and Internet Explorer) in August 1995.
92. Microsoft similarly withheld a scripting tool that Netscape needed to make its browser compatible with certain dial-up ISPs. Microsoft had licensed the tool freely to ISPs that wanted it, and in fact had cooperated with Netscape in drafting a license agreement that, by mid- July 1996, needed only to be signed by an authorized Microsoft executive to go into effect. There the process halted, however.
Creating a Java Implementation for Windows that Undermined Portability and Was Incompatible with Other Implementations
387. Although Sun intended Java technologies eventually to allow developers to write applications that would run on multiple operating systems without any porting, the Java class libraries have never exposed enough APIs to support full-featured applications. Java developers have thus always needed to rely on platform-specific APIs in order to write applications with advanced functionality. Recognizing this, Sun sponsored a process for the creation of a software method that would allow developers writing in Java to rely directly upon APIs exposed by a particular operating system in a way that would nevertheless allow them to port their applications with relative ease to JVMs running on different operating systems.
388. On March 12, 1996, Sun signed an agreement granting Microsoft the right to distribute and make certain modifications to Sun's Java technologies. Microsoft used this license to create its own Java development tools and its own Windows-compatible Java runtime environment. Because the motivation behind the Sun-sponsored effort ran counter to Microsoft's interest in preserving the difficulty of porting, Microsoft independently developed methods for enabling "calls" to "native" Windows code that made porting more difficult than the method that Sun was striving to make standard.
390. Microsoft easily could have implemented Sun's native method along with its own in its developer tools and its JVM, thereby allowing Java developers to choose between speed and portability; however, it elected instead to implement only the Microsoft methods. Microsoft continued to refuse to implement Sun's native method until November 1998, when a court ordered it to do so. It then took Microsoft only a few weeks to implement Sun's native method in its developer tools and JVM.
Is this the most mature and constructive response that Microsoft can muster in this instance? Not only is this an snide, disingenuous analogy, it confirms what we all already know - Microsoft don't have the first clue about the web, the role of open source, or how the web grows. Let's not forget, this little ditty is brought to us by the same people that gave us IE6. Thanks, but no thanks.
Firefox worked ever for an open web, now with Opera & Chrome, the web will remove the cancer of H.264, and will be free (as freedom).
Then why did you make Silverlight, MS.
Is it April 1st??? Excuse me, but every link on this page seems to be talking about HTML??? Is this the new language your describing?
I got a better idea, lets all use PIG LATIN!
Hah the deluded views of money driven, standard ignoring, closed sourcers. I love you're attempt to create something new from the existing world. Thanks for slowing our progress *thumbs up*
As one of the many people that helped give birth to the Internet it is based on open protocols. Ms has very learned this and has always been focused on "Vendor Lockin" Sure MS has broken many protocols so they only work with their system. I am glad to see that there are now more "Big Boys" at the table that believe in open standards that can maybe force you all to play nice. You make a joke about Esperanto yet MS has been talking MSEsperanto for years. Example Kerbous5. Your version is call Kerbous yet no other OS using open standard Kerbous can connect to your AD. Suck it up your now getting caught in your own game you have been playing for years.
I am one of those esperantos....i don't suppose i can think also that the human race is worth anything? the language according to mr Chomsky is a necessity of anyone's life? what is the price of life? if your decision is reflected in any way by the history of life on earth as can be seen as recently as 2008, maybe the rules of law go awry at times as demonstrated by the financial crises around the world and for which we are asked the esperantos to foot the bills. esperanto santi.esperantos santi.
At some point in the future Microsoft will be forced to adopt VP8. It would be better for everyone if it happened as soon as possible.
If Google announced that YouTube won't work with IE in the future the market share of your browser would be less than 5% in a few months.
GOOG and MSFT completely exchanged their usual roles ...
2011 is going to be a very interesting year.