Putting Google Library Into Historical Perspective

from the information-is-a-good-thing dept

Reader Jon writes in with a link to a fascinating New Yorker article that really puts Google's book scanning project into historical perspective. While there are all sorts of ongoing legal scuffles about the efforts to scan and make books and information more widely available, when viewed in the context of history, the legal arguments look even more ridiculous. The benefits to making content more widely available and more easily accessible are so big that it almost seems crazy not to do it. The article goes through all the struggles cultures have had over the ages just trying to classify and organize all sorts of books and information to make it usable -- and here we are with the tools and ability to go beyond everything that's been possible in the past... and we're stymied by a disagreement over copyright law? That just seems sad.

Filed Under: book scanning, google library, history, information
Companies: amazon, google, microsoft

Windows Update Screws Up Again; Pissed Off Users Discover Desktop Search Auto Installed

from the not-what-the-IT-admin-ordered dept

A month ago, there was a story that made that rounds about Microsoft Windows' auto-update feature automatically installing stuff, even if people had turned off the auto-install option. This pissed off a lot of people, but we didn't write about it at the time, assuming it was a one-off glitch. Apparently not. Now reports are coming out that plenty of folks who had auto-update turned off are discovering that a recent patch automatically installed and began running Windows Desktop Search. Once installed, the app started indexing everything, chewing up resources. On top of that, if you want to uninstall WDS, you need to reboot your computer, which is quite a nuisance for many people. Needless to say plenty of folks are pissed off. The specific problem appears to be that this patch simply looked at whether or not a person had approved an earlier (from February) patch -- and if that had been installed, then this one was automatically installed as a "revision." It just so happens that it also included WDS -- even if it wasn't wanted. While the article notes that the Windows Server group had admitted it made a mistake, it doesn't read much like an admission or an apology. Rather, it's just an explanation, which doesn't seem to be placating pissed off users everywhere.

Filed Under: auto update, desktop search, windows
Companies: microsoft

Microsoft's Facebook Deal Might Make Sense If It's An Ad Subsidy... But What About The Hedge Funds?

from the still-scratching-my-head dept

We had some good comments on yesterday's post trying to do the math on Microsoft's $240 million investment in Facebook, for just 1.6% of the company. A few people pointed out that if you ignore the ownership part, and just think of it as something of a marketing statement for Microsoft's ad network, then perhaps it could make some sense. Maybe. Since the deal does come with a big advertising deal, if Microsoft thinks of the $240 million as a marketing spend or ad subsidy with the chance of eventually having some payback then it could potentially make sense -- depending on how valuable Facebook ads turn out to be, and whether or not it then helps Microsoft sign up additional ad partners. However, what's a lot more difficult to figure out is the corresponding rumor that on top of the $240 million from Microsoft, two hedge funds combined to dump another $500 million into Facebook at the same valuation. It's been reported that Facebook had been looking for $750 million, but those hedge funds don't get any of those additional benefits that Microsoft gets. For them, the best has to be on the fact that Facebook is going to be worth a lot more than $15 billion at some point in the relatively near future. That seems like an awful lot of money to bet on a risky situation without that much upside.

Filed Under: ad network, hedge funds, social networks
Companies: facebook, microsoft

The Difference Between Sense And Nonsense: Trying To Make Sense Of Microsoft's Facebook Deal

from the hint:-it's-nonsense dept

Sure, it had been rumored for over a month now, but the news that Facebook actually convinced Microsoft to buy a stake at a $15 billion valuation still makes you do a doubletake. Microsoft put in $240 million for a tiny 1.6% of Facebook. This is less than the $500 million originally rumored, but it tips the scales in terms of totally ridiculous valuations. We had thought that it was Skype who had played the game the best in its insanity inducing ascent to getting bought. Despite only having revenue under $10 million per year, the company started spreading rumors that it was worth over $1 billion. This was helped along by a reporter who confused millions and billions, and suddenly we were off to the races. Suddenly, without any real change in business prospects, we were told that the company was worth $3 billion and then the suitors really started showing up until eBay coughed up $2.6 billion with earnouts that could have brought the deal to $4.3 billion. Of course, we all know how that game ended: eBay just evaporated $1.43 billion of that deal. Last year, it was YouTube who played the same game, riding the hype and whispers to a Google buyout for what now appears to be a paltry $1.65 billion (plus legal headaches). That was merely around $3 million for every day the company had existed.

However, in 2007, we clearly have a new champion at this game. Facebook is most certainly a popular and viral site. However, there are still plenty of questions about how much money the site can really generate long term. When Yahoo apparently tried to buy Facebook last year for $1.62 billion, the math still seemed ridiculous and hard to support. To then make the case for a valuation 10x only a year later goes into fantasy territory. Also, there's a big question about what Microsoft gets out of this. It's hard to see them getting a huge return on the investment. Yes, Facebook is growing and there are some interesting possibilities there -- but we've also seen every other social network before Facebook grow rapidly, peak, and then fall off the map pretty quickly as well. And, even with the growth rate and adoption for Facebook, the rumors concerning how much revenue it's bringing in make it next to impossible to for this valuation to make any sense. About the only rationale that seems to make sense is that Microsoft just threw away $240 million to block Google from getting the deal. Maybe that's worth $240 million (pocket change) to Microsoft in the grand scheme of things -- but it's difficult to see Facebook ever being able to justify that kind of valuation unless something massive changes in the near future. Still, it's great news for Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg who were able to play this game better than anyone we've seen before. Meet your new valuation insanity champion.

Filed Under: bubble
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft

Microsoft Gives In On Antitrust Claims; Will It Make A Difference?

from the probably-not dept

Just a week after dropping an appeal on an antitrust ruling in South Korea, Microsoft has now agreed to the EU's antitrust ruling. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, as Microsoft's appeal had already been smacked down by the EU courts. While this may appear to be something of a shift from Microsoft's more common willingness to fight these sorts of things to the end, it really shouldn't be that surprising. At some point, the company had to realize that things weren't going to get any better. And, at the same time, Microsoft had really held out for long enough on many of these issues. The remedies (beyond the fines) in the EU don't appear to be all that onerous and, if anything, should actually make Microsoft's operating system somewhat more attractive to purchasers in Europe, as it could make it easier for other applications to work well on the Microsoft platform. So, while some in the press are saying that Microsoft "blinked," it seems more accurate to say that it was able to drag the process out for long enough to serve its own purposes.

Filed Under: antitrust, eu, korea
Companies: microsoft

Studios Unveil Meaningless 'Guidelines' For User Content Sites

from the audible-magic-full-employment-agreement dept

There's a lot of talk about the new "guidelines" that were announced today mainly by the big television studios, along with a few smaller players in the online video space. The press coverage highlights two things: this is a big deal and it's notable that Google didn't agree to join. I'm not sure either thing is really true. Reading through the actual principles, about the only thing that's noteworthy is how pointless they are. If anything, they're basically a "full employment for Audible Magic" document in that they require companies to install the type of filters that Audible Magic is selling (though, it's still questionable how well they work). There are some totally meaningless statements about supporting fair use, but no details on how that's actually to be done. In other words, these principles are basically "everyone should install filters that block unauthorized content and... uh... the content companies will remain aware that fair use sort of exists sometimes." That's somewhat meaningless. Google's reason for not joining, even though it has come up with its own filters, is that it doesn't see why it should agree to stand by any specific guidelines that go above and beyond what the law requires, as there could be conditions under which such guidelines hold back necessary innovation. The bigger point, though, is how truly meaningless these guidelines are. If those guidelines are truly effective in stopping some unauthorized content on these sites, that content (and many users) will simply migrate elsewhere. In other words, it won't stop that unauthorized use of content and it won't help any of the companies that have agreed to the principles. That means that the impact of such things is likely to be pretty much nil.

Filed Under: copyright, guidelines, user generated content
Companies: audible magic, cbs, disney, google, microsoft, myspace, nbc universal, news corp, viacom

Supreme Court Lets Class Action Racketeering Suit Against Best Buy & Microsoft Move Forward

from the the-not-so-free-paid-trial dept

Way back in 2003, we wrote about accusations that Microsoft and Best Buy were scamming customers into signing up for Microsoft's ISP MSN. The accusation was that Best Buy employees would scan the "free trial" MSN CD-ROMs that were at the store when customers would make a purchase. Customers wouldn't realize it, but the scan would then charge that customer's credit card once the free trial ended, signing them up as fully paying customers. While we wondered how widespread this practice was, some Best Buy employees have come forward to confirm that it was done at times. Both Best Buy and Microsoft have been fighting the case, and an appeal went all the way up to the Supreme Court, trying to get the case thrown out, but the Supreme Court has refused to review it, meaning the case can move forward. Of course, what's left out of much of the coverage is that lawyers working for Best Buy have already admitted to altering some of the documents he handed over in the case, which certainly doesn't bode well for Best Buy. While it's still unclear just how big a "class" this covers, if the two companies really were involved in such an activity, it does seem quite sleazy.

Filed Under: class action, free trial, racketeering
Companies: best buy, microsoft

Steve Ballmer's Prophecy Comes True: Former Microsoft Execs Sue Red Hat, Novell Over Patents

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Jon writes in to let us know that a small patent holding firm, IP Innovation, has sued Red Hat and Novell over patent infringement concerning a ridiculously broad patent. As the Groklaw report outlines, the suing company is actually a subsidiary of Acacia, which is considered to be one of the more egregious firms in using bad patents to squeeze money out of companies. Groklaw also notes that Acacia has recently hired a bunch of execs from Microsoft, leading to the conspiracy theory that Steve Ballmer's recent predictions of patent lawsuits against Red Hat were more than random speculation. I'm not willing to go that far just yet, but as you can see from Ars Technica's breakdown of the patent earlier this year (when the company sued Apple), it describes very broadly the concept of workspaces in a computer user interface. This is yet another example of the worst of our patent system at work. Companies that offer innovative products getting sued using vague, overly broad patents on obvious ideas that never should have been granted in the first place.

Filed Under: linux, open source, patents
Companies: acacia, microsoft, red hat

Bill Gates Damns Zune With Faint Praise

from the the-anti-Jobs dept

By now, most people are aware of the "reality distortion field" that surrounds Steve Jobs. Folks attending his keynotes or product launches talk about how it's almost a religious experience, where he really does make you feel like the latest iPod nano is the greatest device ever invented. It's no secret that Bill Gates has a rather different personality -- but it's still quite bizarre to see the level of faint praise Gates gives the Zune as its second generation launches:

"For something we pulled together in six months, we are very pleased with the satisfaction we got.... It was just so-so on the software side. I'm sure a year from now we'll do even better."

He does insist that the satisfaction was "superhigh," but satisfaction and passion are two very different beasts. Of course, this fits right in with how Microsoft has attacked this problem from the beginning: designing the product by committee, rather than coming up with something that they can be passionate about. When even your CEO can't show much passion about your products (especially when those products are up against Steve Jobs' latest products), you've got a problem.

Filed Under: bill gates, ipod, steve jobs, zune
Companies: apple, microsoft

Google, AOL, Yahoo And Microsoft All Sued Over Excessively Broad Auction Patent

from the innovation-at-work dept

In the latest silly patent lawsuit to be filed in Marshall, Texas a company holding a patent on using gaming to determine the final price of an auction system. The company is now claiming that Google, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft are all violating the patent with their ad auction models. The interesting thing here is that the patent is clearly talking about a very different system. It describes a process of setting a range for a price, and then allowing some sort of game ("a video game, electronic board game, sports bet, card game") to determine what the actual final price is within that range. Of course, that doesn't sound at all like what the various companies listed here are doing. However, that's where whoever drafted the patent earned his or her money. Rather than limiting it to games like those listed, the following phrase was also added: "or any other activity." This is right out of the standard patent attorney's playbook for creating super broad patents -- though it goes against the entire purpose of the patent system. None of the companies involved built their businesses based on this patent. They certainly didn't get the idea for an ad auction based on this patent. Instead, this is just some company taking an overly broad patent and trying to apply it to big, rich companies, in the hopes of scoring some kind of cash settlement. That's not what the patent system is designed to do.

Filed Under: business models, patents
Companies: aol, google, microsoft, yahoo