stories about: "microsoft"
Microsoft Tries A 'First One's Free' Strategy To Lure Startups
from the you-know-you-want-to-try... dept
Microsoft certainly recognizes the fact that most startups these days are automatically gravitating to a LAMP infrastructure (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP). So, now it seems to be trying out a new program to lure startups by offering them free software for a few years and combining it with additional services that they hope will appeal to startups. It's an interesting approach, though, in the long run, it still seems like they may have the equation backwards. While they are giving some stuff away free initially, the ultimate goal is to lock companies into paying for infinite goods like software, rather than scarcities like services.Filed Under: free, services, software, startups
Companies: microsoft
Microsoft Against Free Software... But In Favor Of Paying Nations To Use Its Software?
from the something-doesn't-seem-right dept
With more and more countries aggressively moving to embrace free and open source software, it appears that Microsoft is using its own money to its advantage, such as with this agreement to hand over $60 million to South Korea to get it to use its software, rather than the alternatives. While it may seem silly when you take a step back and look at the situation, it does show some of the mixed up incentives related to software. Individuals and organizations can simply embrace free software, or Microsoft can pay out $60 million towards various projects now, knowing that it will pressure the South Korean gov't and firms into spending a lot more than that on its software. At some point, people will begin to realize this is just a bad deal. The programs Microsoft invests in make out well, as do some government officials, but everyone else ends up worse off.Filed Under: payments, software, south korea
Companies: microsoft
California Schools Not Using $200 Million From The Microsoft Settlement
from the not-a-priority? dept
A few years back, in settling a civil lawsuit against Microsoft for its monopolistic practices, Microsoft agreed to pay out $250 million to California schools, in the form of vouchers. Now, there are some who might point out that this sort of "settlement" makes good business sense, in that many will use the vouchers on PCs with Microsoft software, thereby getting a new generation of kids hooked on Microsoft products (it's worth pointing out that the vouchers can be used on non-Microsoft software as well). However, that's hardly the biggest issue, apparently. Instead, people are realizing that the vast majority of the $250 million is not being used by the schools. Some are pointing out that their budgets are being slashed, and since they have to pay for the equipment upfront and then request money back later, it's just too much trouble. Others are saying it just hasn't been a priority, even though they know the money is available.Filed Under: antitrust, california, schools, settlement
Companies: microsoft
Cloud Computing Has To Be About Openness And Ease; Not Locking Developers In
from the let's-see-something-real dept
There was a ton of press coverage today over Microsoft's not-particularly-surprising announcement of Microsoft Azure, its attempt to get into the cloud computing business, competing with the likes of Amazon, Google's AppEngine and (now) Rackspace, among others. Microsoft entering this space isn't a surprise at all, so it's a bit disappointing to see the sheer lack of details surrounding the announcement. Amazon has succeeded in the space because of two main things: incredibly cheap prices and ridiculous ease-of-use.Amazon recognized early on that its "cloud computing" efforts were a true utility offering. It needed to be pure plug and play with very low, easy to understand pricing, and absolutely no hassle to get started. It was so easy and such a good deal, many developers couldn't come up with any reason not to use Amazon's web services. While I initially thought Google's AppEngine might provide serious competition for Amazon, today I'm less sure. Google is using AppEngine more as a way to get startups to build their technology to work on Google's tech platform. That's the same thing that Microsoft will clearly be doing with Azure. Yet, for Amazon, it was never about locking developers in to Amazon's platform: it was just about making use of spare computing cycles. The fact that it wasn't so tied to Amazon's core business may actually be a benefit here, in that it lets Amazon be a lot more open and free about how people can use it, keeping it super cheap and easy. Google and Microsoft, on the other hand, get too focused on using their cloud offerings to tie developers to their own tech stack. I agree that someone else could come in and create a cloud computing solution that beats Amazon by being even more open and easier -- I just don't see either Google or Microsoft being that company.
Filed Under: azure, cloud computing, ease of use, lock in, openness
Companies: amazon, google, microsoft
Russia Realizes That Free Software Beats Sending Principals To Siberia For Piracy
from the good-job,-Microsoft dept
You may recall the story last year of a Russian school principal who was arrested for buying computers for his school that had counterfeit versions of Windows. Even though he had no idea that the software was not authorized, he was threatened with being sent to a Siberian prison (seriously), leading to some international outrage. Even Mikhail Gorbachev got involved, begging Microsoft to drop the case (unfortunately, Microsoft wasn't actually involved in the case and couldn't do anything). While the original case was dropped, many were surprised when the charges were refiled and the guy was found guilty. While he wasn't sentenced to a Siberian jail, he was fined over one-month's salary.Of course, if Microsoft and the BSA thought that these sorts of moves would help deter piracy, they might want to adjust their thinking.
What happened instead, of course, was that many schools started looking into alternatives, such as Linux and other open source offerings, that came with a much lower likelihood of having them dragged into court and threatened with Siberian exile. And, the latest news (found via Slashdot) is that Russia has now made it official policy that all schools should use free software. If they want to use proprietary software, they can't use gov't funds to buy it.
It seems that all that "cracking down" on piracy worked wonders, huh? It sent the entire Russian school system directly into the hands of the competition. Good work.
Filed Under: copyright, free software, russia, schools, software
Companies: microsoft
Search Engine Cache Isn't Copyright Infringement
from the good-news-for-search-engines dept
There are some out there who have suggested that search engines such as Google and Yahoo are basically just massive copyright violators, because they scan, index and keep an archive of websites. That copied archive (usually called a cache) is, according to these commenters, an unauthorized copy. Now a court has basically destroyed that argument, noting that putting content online is giving an implicit license for search engines to index and copy. The lawsuit also claimed that individuals who visited the cached version were also infringers -- but the court also rejected that argument, claiming that the implied license extends to those users. The only part of the case that seems to be moving forward is whether or not this implicit license was broken after the lawsuit started and search engines still didn't take down the content. The idea there was that any explicit notification by the content holder might override the implicit license -- and thus search engines should have taken down the content as soon as the lawsuit started (thus signaling an explicit revoke of the license). Of course, the whole thing seems pretty silly. If the guy didn't want his content indexed, he should learn what a robots.txt file is for.Filed Under: cache, copyright, search engine
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo
Chinese Windows Users Accuse Microsoft Of Hacking Their Computers
from the a-successful-antipiracy-day,-huh? dept
Part of Microsoft's big antipiracy day festivities was to talk about how it was ramping up efforts to crack down on unauthorized copies of its software in China (again, despite the fact that unauthorized copies in China are part of what helped establish Microsoft software as the de facto standard there). The efforts in China include more use of what Microsoft likes to call "Windows Genuine Advantage" -- which is really a DRM system known mostly for falsely accusing legitimate buyers of being pirates. Approximately half a million legitimate buyers were accused of piracy, leading many to suggest that WGA is quite similar to a rootkit, making your computer not function properly, all in the name of stopping piracy.Over in China, it appears that they're not at all happy about WGA. Last year, a student there sued Microsoft for privacy violations in sending info back to Redmond via WGA, and in response to Microsoft's "get tough on piracy" campaign, apparently a bunch of folks in China are publicly denouncing WGA as being an illegal intrusion on their computers. They're accusing the company of trying to control computers without permission and of "hacking" their systems. Microsoft's response, of course, would be that legitimate buyers have nothing to worry about -- even though that doesn't quite seem to be the case. Still, it's difficult to feel all that sympathetic for the complainers -- as they should have known what they were getting with Windows. If they don't like it, there are other options on the market.
Filed Under: china, hacking, rootkit, windows genuine advantage
Companies: microsoft
A Business Relationship Built At The End Of A Pointy Stick Isn't Much Of A Relationship
from the let's-do-business,-or-we-might-sue dept
Last week, Microsoft was kind enough to invite me to sit down, one-on-one with Horacio Gutierrez, the company's VP and Deputy General Counsel in charge of intellectual property and licensing. As you might imagine, given my views on the patent system in general, and Microsoft's gradual embrace of the patent system specifically, he and I disagreed on a fair amount. We agreed that the patent system should be focused on encouraging innovation. We agreed that there were abuses of the system. From there, our views pretty much diverged, though the conversation was fun and lively.Gutierrez began the conversation by focusing on all of the "benefits" that Microsoft sees to the patent system, which focused on all of the licensing deals that the company has done. He positioned it by noting that the patent portfolio allows the Microsoft to get into deeper business relationships with other entities. Specifically, he noted that in many cases what began as a patent licensing discussion eventually leads to a much more complete business relationship that increases interoperability. He cited deals with both Sun and Novell as examples of this.
The problem, of course, is that this ignores how these deals actually began. Rather than approaching each other over mutually beneficial relationships, they really involve an implicit threat. That is, Microsoft shows up with its big patent portfolio (or, let's say, a big pointy stick) and says "hey, let's make a deal, or I'll jab you with the pointy stick." Yes, that can obviously lead to further business deals, but it's not about two companies entering into a relationship willingly for mutual benefit. It's all based on a rather clear threat.
The fallacy that Gutierrez laid out is that these sorts of relationships and interoperability are impossible to come by without the use of that pointy stick. That's difficult to believe. If the relationships really are mutually beneficial, then they are likely to come about in a much more friendly manner anyway. When I pointed out (literally) that Microsoft coming to companies with a big stick didn't seem like the friendliest of business negotiations, Gutierrez suggested that you "need" the stick to make the conversations work. On that we disagree, and there's a pretty long history of companies entering into mutually beneficial relationships that don't necessarily involve the threat of a lawsuit or government granted monopolies on processes.
Gutierrez also pointed out that any complex product these days, by its very nature, will violate numerous patents from numerous other companies and individuals. Thus, his argument is that we really should focus on mechanisms to avoid lawsuits to allow those products to move forward. Thus, licensing is preferable to lawsuits. That's true, but misses the point. The fact that no complex product can be brought to market without violating numerous patents should be seen as the problem, rather than a truism that is solved through licensing. Let's fix the problem that makes it so difficult for products to get to market without paying a "tax" to other companies, and figure out ways to let companies innovate freely and compete in the marketplace.
I was somewhat surprised to also hear Gutierrez claim that because of this "patent thicket" situation these days, you couldn't innovate without patents. I interrupted him to point out that this was ridiculous on its face, as Microsoft's own history showed. His response was that the situation had changed as the interpretation of both copyright and patent law over the past couple of decades had changed, such that protections that the company had thought it had in the early years didn't really exist, and additional rulings made it clear that other protections would be useful. Needless to say, I find that unconvincing. There's plenty of evidence that a ton of innovation occurred when software companies focused on the market, rather than on ownership of ideas.
Gutierrez also insisted on pointing out that Microsoft's rather massive patent portfolio had been voted by some third party to be one of, if not the, best patent portfolios in terms of quality. He suggested that other firms, such as IBM, were more likely to file very questionable patents, but Microsoft was much more focused on quality. Perhaps that's a subjective measure, but given how many questionable Microsoft patents we see around here all the time, some may beg to differ -- or at least point out that some questionable patents are getting through.
In discussing all of this with Gutierrez, I brought up the company's continual FUD campaign, where it goes to the press to wave that pointy stick around, in announcing that Linux violates over 200 Microsoft patents. Gutierrez noted that he was among the Microsoft execs who had made those statements, and he stood by them, claiming that Richard Stallman agrees, and falling back on his earlier claim of all complex products violating some patents, which is why he says they just want Linux vendors to work out some sort of patent licensing agreement. That, of course, doesn't answer the question of why Microsoft keeps screaming about patent infringement, but never bothers to show what patents anyone infringes on.
Finally, we did have a fun conversation on the historical and macro level impacts of patent systems throughout history, where he asserted that perhaps the reason so many countries have found faster innovation in eras of fewer patents was because it makes sense to ignore patents during developmental phases, but after that to put protections in place. I pointed out that it seemed difficult to believe that there was some fundamental shift in economics that meant patents made sense at one time, but not at another -- but by then we were running out of time to discuss things.
On the whole, however, I'll say that we had a spirited discussion on the role of the patent system in encouraging innovation. More than once, we agreed that the conversation might have been more fun if we were having it around a couple of beers, rather than a Microsoft conference table. While I don't think either of us changed each other's minds, I did appreciate the chance to sit down and discuss these issues face to face on the record, and I hope to have a chance to continue the discussion in the future. I can understand where he is coming from and what Microsoft's position on the matter is, but you have to admit, as the holder of a bigger pointy stick than most other participants, Microsoft may be more inclined than others to be a big supporter of being allowed to use the big pointy stick.
Filed Under: intellectual property, licensing, patents
Companies: microsoft
Microsoft Celebrating Antipiracy Day
from the not-as-much-fun dept
It's been just over a month since the International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and yet, that's all I can think about when I hear Microsoft announce that today it's celebrating "antipiracy day", during which it will try to highlight everything the company is doing to combat unauthorized file sharing. Odd, then, that this would be the same company that in the past has admitted that it greatly benefits from piracy of its own products, in establishing worldwide standards and in competing against open source alternatives. The company, apparently, is a bit conflicted. In the meantime, anyone have tips on "talking like an antipirate?" I'm guessing it will include such strawman phrases as "it's just like stealing a physical product!," "all content creation would stop," and "content creators deserve to make money!"Filed Under: antipiracy, piracy
Companies: microsoft
