We think that
each
one should be named for one of Dick Van Patten's brood from "
Eight
Is Enough." Then, IT people could say things like, "I've implemented
Nancy, but I'm having some trouble with Susan. And I can't get Nicholas to download
properly..."
Posted by Lee Pender on April 08, 20080 comments
Microsoft just gave us a wonderful reason to
buy
a low-cost PC in the next couple of years.
Posted by Lee Pender on April 08, 20080 comments
Vista what? Vista who? As if it wasn't hard enough being Windows Vista already
-- what with the love for XP in the user base, the scant enterprise adoption
and the routine pounding in the trade press -- the man most responsible for
making Microsoft what it is today is already talking about Vista's successor.
Bill Gates kind of, sort of said that Windows 7, Vista's successor and an OS
that won't have to follow a legend like XP, might
come out in 2009. The rest of Microsoft -- from which Gates is supposed
to finally, officially retire this year -- put
the kibosh on that notion, saying that the 2010 release date most pundits
expected is still circled on Redmond's calendar.
Really, though, the date doesn't matter that much -- unless it bleeds into,
say, 2012, Vista-style. What matters is that Vista is so maligned that news
that its successor might be even a few months early has set the trade press
on fire. And, although we here at RCPU have always contended that most people
would eventually use Vista the way they now use XP, we're not so sure about
that prediction anymore.
We always figured that, Microsoft being Microsoft, Windows 7 would be a year
or two later than expected, and Redmond would just end XP support and push everybody
to Vista. Well, if Windows 7 really is due in 2010 (or, especially, 2009), and
it's on schedule, then Vista might really get the William
Henry Harrison treatment (ahem, history buffs -- he died after 31 days as
president) or might just never really hold office at all.
For partners, it's not the end of the world. They can build on XP, on Vista,
on Windows 7...whatever. But, as far as dramas go, Windows release-date sagas
are always fun to watch, and this one is getting an early start. Stay tuned.
Will you skip Vista if Windows 7 really is coming out in 2009 or 2010? Or would
you have skipped it, anyway? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on April 08, 200815 comments
Many have the times been here at RCPU that we've defended Microsoft -- in the
EU antitrust cases, in certain disputes with other vendors and against the more
communist element of the open source movement.
But this is just nasty.
Avistar
Communications is going through a rough time. That's probably the first
thing that we should understand here. Avistar makes videoconferencing software
with a specialty in enterprise desktop video, and its new CEO, an affable Brit
named Simon Moss, sees his company's wares as a great fit for the cresting wave
of unified communications (UC) platforms.
For now, though, times are tough financially. Avistar just this month regained
compliance with Nasdaq listing standards after falling out with the market
for failing to meet a minimum market value for listed securities. The company
just reported a third straight fiscal year with a net loss -- although a much
smaller one than the one it gushed
in 2006.
But all hope wasn't lost for Moss when he took over as CEO on Jan. 1. Avistar
has, after all, a litany of patents that can and do help generate revenue; suffice
it to say that intellectual property (IP), something so sacrosanct to Microsoft
when it was swatting at the EU and other antitrust mosquitoes, is the lifeblood
of Avistar. Avistar's no patent squatter -- it's been producing software for
years -- but IP is a huge component of what makes the company viable. That's
what makes this story so disappointing...but we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Hoping to cash in on Microsoft's ambitious, software-centric UC platform, Avistar
opened up discussions with the software titan about Redmond potentially licensing
some of Avistar's IP and using it in Microsoft UC wares.
"Microsoft is one of the major players in the UC space," Tony Rodde,
president of Avistar's IP division, told RCPU recently. "We went to them
with discussions on our portfolio and possibly collaborations therein. They've
been very professional, non-threatening discussions."
Well, they were for a while, anyway. Until Microsoft suddenly decided to ask
the U.S. Patent Office to reexamine 29 of Avistar's patents -- including some
that date back to 1993. Avistar has been in patent battles before; it settled
disputes that it started with both Polycom and Tandberg, both of which now license
Avistar's technology. Moss is confident that Avistar's patents will withstand
reexamination, and he's talking tough about going up against Redmond.
"We're going to be able to fight it as long as we need to," Moss
told RCPU. "It will be a war of attrition if it goes on, but the company
will persevere."
The war, however, is already proving costly. Avistar announced last week that
it's letting go a whopping 25 percent of its workforce, primarily, it says,
because of Microsoft's action. Moss is blunt about his company's prospects:
"It's going to cost us a lot of money. Truly, this was an action that hurt
us."
And it's an action that, Avistar says, came out of the blue. One day, the company's
in talks about Microsoft licensing its technology, and the next, Microsoft is
-- in RCPU's view, not in Avistar's -- trying to put it out of business and
fleece its IP.
"Some of the patents that have gone into reexam have nothing to do with
Microsoft's strategy or portfolio," Moss said. (Well, not yet, anyway,
RCPU says.) He adds that the reexamination of 29 patents would represent 5 percent
of the total number of patents reexamined in the U.S. (600) all of last year.
Added Rodde, "What we felt was that we had a basis for having a very in-depth
licensing discussion whereas they would be licensing our technology. Those discussions
[with MS] turned into putting our patents into reexam. There was no intent to
cut the discussions off. That's why it was such a surprise to us. The [law]
firm that does our patents -- they believe this is an unprecedented action."
Now seems as good a time as any to drop in the obligatory Microsoft statement
-- since nobody in Redmond would actually talk to us about this story -- on
the Avistar patent move. It came via e-mail from Microsoft's PR firm, attributed
to Michael Marinello, director of public relations at Microsoft:
"We have asked the U.S. patent office to take another look at Avistar's
patents in light of prior art which was not considered in the original examination
of the patents. Any discussions that may be going on between the parties are
confidential and not something we are at liberty to discuss."
Whatever. Sorry, Microsoft, but you're not looking too good in this scenario.
This is the dark side of Microsoft, the side we've
told you about in the magazine, the side that brings out the critics and
the haters and the antitrust hounds. This is Microsoft trying to prey on a struggling
company that happens to have some attractive IP and litigate that company into
oblivion before draining its lifeblood.
There's free-market capitalism, and then there's predatory business practices.
Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between the two, but this falls
into the latter category, as far as we can tell. And while we know that Microsoft
(along with lots of other big vendors -- most others, really) is no stranger
to that sort of thing, it doesn't make it any less disturbing.
Moss said that some of the anti-Microsoft brigade has come to his aid, but
mostly with moral support. "We're in a bar; some guy's hitting us with
a baseball bat, and they're all going, 'Come on, Simon! Hit him back!'"
Moss said of some of his company's well-meaning allies. "That's about it.
I've got nothing but an ice cream cone."
The funny thing is that Moss and Rodde still want to partner with Microsoft,
and they're trying to put the best face on things. Moss doesn't see Microsoft's
action as an example of a big vendor trying to cripple a smaller player (although
he does admit that a "cynical person" might see things that way),
and he's still trying to look at Redmond in a positive light.
"We're being pushed by many people in the market saying, 'This is typical
Microsoft; this is what they do,'" Moss said. "I don't think it's
necessarily them. We were on this [UC] just as the Internet bubble was starting.
Now all of a sudden this market's blowing up. Now's the time that Avistar can
really begin to flourish. We hope that the partnership and distribution agreements
we were talking about can be revitalized."
Hopefully. But frankly, at RCPU, we have our doubts.
Do you have a Microsoft nightmare story to share? Or are we being too hard
on Redmond here? Express yourself at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on April 03, 20082 comments
Microsoft's
famous
victory in getting its Office Open XML standard approved by the ISO might
not be a done deal yet, if the
pesky
EU has anything to say about it.
Posted by Lee Pender on April 03, 20080 comments
One survey of resellers finds that leads from vendors
aren't
so great after all.
Posted by Lee Pender on April 03, 20080 comments
This is the way it used to be when the New York Yankees were dominant, when
the Steelers or 49ers were winning Super Bowls, and when Manchester United couldn't
be stopped (and, actually, those days for Man U seem to be returning). They
might fall behind here and there, maybe lose a game, maybe even lose a championship...but
then they would collect themselves, rally and unleash fury upon their hapless
opponents, reminding them who was boss after all. That's pretty much what Microsoft
did with Office Open XML.
Oh, Redmond has taken it on the chin lately. The EU got a shot or two in. Google
has been working the body. Apple publicly humiliated Microsoft with the best
ad campaign of at least the last 25 years, and Redmond mostly wounded itself
with Vista. But this week, the champ came storming back the way champions do
-- love them or hate them (and please, please don't get your editor started
on any of the sports teams listed above; he hates or once hated them all).
By the time you read this, OOXML will be an industry
standard. Yes, that's right -- after failing
the first time to garner the required number of votes, Microsoft's document
format roared back and won
the approval of the International Organization for Standardization. That
means that Microsoft has legitimacy in the eyes of an independent -- well, more
or less independent -- standards body.
Of course, we're sure that Microsoft, uh, strongly encouraged a few delegates
from a few nations to change their votes -- which lots of delegates did. And,
really, OOXML's acceptance isn't all that big of a deal for partners and users,
practically speaking; after all, Microsoft document formats are also de facto
standards.
But now, all of those government agencies charged with implementing standards-based
computing are free to turn away from open source and run back to sweet mama
Microsoft if they so choose. And whatever momentum open source had gained by
taking the standards route in IT departments has certainly slowed -- if not
come to a screeching halt.
Really, though, what can we learn from this event? There's an old boxing adage
that says that a challenger has to knock out the champ in order to beat him;
a decision by the judges will never do. Well, in this case, nobody could knock
out the champ -- not the open source movement, not rival vendors, not bloggers,
not the trade press. OOXML's status as a standard might not affect our everyday
work lives all that much, but it does remind us of one thing: Microsoft is still
Microsoft, and, when it wants to be, Microsoft is still the boss.
What's your take on OOXML becoming a standard? How powerful do you feel Microsoft
still is in the technology industry? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on April 02, 200838 comments
Google's word processor-y sort of thing isn't just a SaaS application anymore.
Google Docs is
now
available offline in what a lot of people are calling a challenge to Microsoft
Word.
Our note to Google: Be careful what you're getting into here. You've still
got Microsoft over a barrel with the whole SaaS-apps thing, but offline productivity
software is Redmond's bread and butter, and Microsoft has crushed all competitors
that have tried to usurp its position in the market. We're just saying...
Posted by Lee Pender on April 02, 20080 comments
No jokes, please. It's an
MIT
consortium on network authentication. Now,
those must be some rockin'
parties.
Posted by Lee Pender on April 01, 20080 comments