CEO dares Microsoft to sue him over virtual desktops that flout licensing
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
A similar situation exists with video games. The market is going pure digital and gamers want the ability to sell "used" digital games. If that were possible then a middleman service would appear which would instantly "buy" and "sell" the game as you launched and closed a game. A wildly successful game such as Skyrim sells millions of copies but only had ~300,000k concurrent users (on PC) at launch. A couple of months later and that number is only ~50,000. Suffice to say this will never be allowed to happen.
We provide complimentary promotional materials and marketing support for your cafés.
We are happy to support for in-café tournaments and special events. Please let us know about your upcoming events.
All participants have access to the private Café Forums where they may discuss trends and issues in the cybercafé industry with fellow café owners and operators."
Once again Valve is showing the world how things should be done, is wildly successful, and nobody else seems to pay attention.
It shouldn't be such a huge issue to just meet your customer in the middle.
On the subject of second-hand digital licenses, some people I know (slightly, haven't spoken to in quite a while) created http://www.greenmangaming.co.uk a couple of years ago, built around this concept - no idea how they're getting on.
Discounted, but not to a $24 million for all Skyrim players degree (based on $80 a copy and 300k users peak).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.
Ignoring the legal issue, second-hand purchase of software with license keys, particularly on ebay, is dangerous because those keys may be in use by other people. If the software uses an internet licensing server, it might disable itself because the key is already in use. Buying windows on ebay is a good example.
I suppose the real question is if Microsoft's position on the desktop makes it illegal to do a favorable deal with On-Live? I am not aware if this would be illegal or not? One would think it would be at least against the spirit of the law to carve out a market niche for a microsoft "old boy" and protect it through their monopoly position... but it wouldn't surprise me if there is no regulation in place to stop this.
I am wondering what the shareholders think. They are refusing to license to most players in order to protect windows and office on the desktop. On the other hand they are giving up a new non-trivial revenue stream during the transition period. I would think a lot of investors would want to take the short term cash and run.
Having previously worked for Red Hat on the Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization support team, it always was strange looking at the VDI products that it was SO SO expensive to run the infrastructure purely due to Microsoft Licensing. Microsoft don't want to loose the grip so they make VDI licensing difficult, instead pushing mixed virtualization where you need to run windows on your desktop as well.
VDI struck me as almost purely a windows solution. If your running linux you have a range of other options to have multiple users on a single infrastructure in a workable way without having hundreds of VMs.
It clearly works; look at other open source solutions that are a collaborative effort. Linux as a whole, Python, Ruby, OpenStack, etc.
The demographics may prove interesting.
That should teach me not to post right before going to bed.
That's $2.5 Million/month in licensing costs alone. That pays for quite a bit of developer time.
Some people might be able to shave off some customers, but you are going to have to have some killer feature (even if it is price).
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Such is the very first sentence of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Getting convictions can be a pain in the ass, and there are many things that could be violations but are not usually treated as such in practice, but the statute in theory is very broad, and the general principle is that actions which seriously harm competition in a market are unlawful. The acts do not have to be specifically enumerated in advance.
In the physical world many companies have patented processes that they don't offer to others.
I am not a lawyer, but I think unless there is existing case law there will be enough points for the case to go on for many many many years making the point moot.
If the deal hurts competition in a market, the deal may be illegal, yes.
> In the physical world many companies have patented processes that they don't offer to others.
Which may or may not harm competition in an identifiable market. Compulsory patent licensing regimes are sometimes forced upon companies in the US as a result of antitrust action, and other countries sometimes have general compulsory licensing schemes that are always in effect.
Are you confusing "harming a competitor" with "harming competition"? They're not the same thing.
> I am not a lawyer, but I think unless there is existing case law there will be enough points for the case to go on for many many many years making the point moot.
Major antitrust cases always take years. Any major litigation takes years. The first AT&T antitrust case in the late 40s/early 50s took 7 years to settle, and the second one, which broke the company up, took eight. Those didn't even go to trial.
Unfortunately there primary businesses are based on selling Microsoft Software Services, and while it would almost certainly result in Microsoft being fined eventually... I am pretty certain they will do the same thing in the 90s and just kill the vendors who are going after them. Raise a few SKU prices for that kind of market, make the companies unprofitable.
First, assuming a private antitrust lawsuit is brought against Microsoft by a company that then enters bankruptcy proceedings, it is very possible the case would continue long after the company ceases ordinary operations. A lawsuit doesn't become moot just because one party is "dead".
Second, "the litigants" could ultimately end up including the US Department of Justice, various state attorneys general, the European Commission, and possibly other competition authorities around the world. These are entities with vast powers and resources, and the risk to Microsoft is potentially billions of dollars, if not its very existence.
Is it more expensive then buying a company... most likely, but it stops the entire market space moving forward. Microsoft knew they were violating anti-trust with the browser but they still did it. In doing so they delayed any move towards the "Networked computer" model that everyone was saying was the future.
To protect the crown jewels (windows + office) I am pretty sure Microsoft will sacrifice it all to maintain that monopoly. Like Nero in Rome, they will let it burn.
Unlike trademarks to my knowledge there is nothing that devalues their offering by NOT suing, and instead suing other providers, at least until it gets large enough. Hell they even make money on each windows 7 license they need.
On the other hand, I really don't expect Microsoft to do this. It might take them years to bother to sue, but I see them taking it on simply because they can't turn a blind eye to piracy.
Am just about to begin an IAmA on reddit if you fancy joining me there : http://bit.ly/redditor
Or follow my updates on twitter about this :
https://twitter.com/#!/Guise_Bule
OR go read my blog post : http://bit.ly/MicroFap
I have a hosted WS2008R2 instance that I can RDP into and use for whatever I want. Are there some other licensing constraints that prevent WS2008 from being used in that manner?
IANAL so correct as necessary, but he seems like he's tilting at windmills.
And, there were competing browsers and operating systems during the first case, too. The mere existence of competitors does not preclude antitrust action. Just ask AT&T and T-Mobile.
Agreed. I just don't see the anti-competitive behavior around virtual desktops that we did with WinOS and IE, so I think it would be a very tough sell.
If I provide a virtualized hardware desktop hosting platform that can enable the client to load an ISO of Windows and enter his own serial key, am I violating any Windows hosted desktop restrictions?
Or am I only violating it if I supply the serial keys (from legit separate/per-customer/never re-asigned OEM copies)?
I think it's the latter, because in the former there is absolutly no contract between myself and Microsoft. What the client does with my platform is his business and doing. If he activates Windows there, that's between him and Microsoft.
So what is the problem that these articles are trying to point out? How is it difficult for customers to buy their own OEM copy and supply a serial key?...
Cusomter goes to your panel, clicks to load some already predefined or prehosted VHD or ISO, then supplies serial key him/herself. Problem solved? Or is this all about the cost of OEM copies?
You might be able to enable the client to load an ISO of Windows and have him enter his serial key but you'd have to separate hardware for each customer making any virtualization completely pointless.
zzzzzZZZZZZZ