Stutz talks about "hooks" in standards as a way to allow for MS and other vendors to add value and compete on implementation. Just as the GPL indirectly undermines the MS existing commercial software model, such "hooks" indirectly break the standards by destroying interoperability.
MS is attempting this same tactic with SOAP. If one vendor's single proprietary extension becomes a "de facto" standard due to overwhelming market share, then the standard initiative has become pointless. The same problem occurs if the proprietary "hook" is used as a replacement to a competing and interoperable portion of the standard.
The solution: No more of these "hooks" in standards. Compete purely on implementation of a pure standard with all elements equally owned by all. This model has inspired the vendor rush to adopt server-side Java.
Stutz's legalistic defense of the crippling of the Kerberos standard by MS smacks of a disingenuous commitment to the spirit of a standard. When such "loopholes" are found in most standards, they are usually corrected and closed.
Stutz talks - and apparently thinks - like a MS lawyer. There is no recognition in his words of the intangible benefits of sharing source code: the enhanced creativity and evolution of new ideas through knowledge sharing, open dialogue and meaningful community discourse. These benefits center on the architecture of community building.
MS does not embrace these values; the words of Stutz in the article always center around the concept of "control". There is no altruism by MS present here.