Sendo vs. Microsoft: The Truth Comes Out

igotmybfg writes "The Register has a story which includes many details about the phone maker's Texas suit against the software giant. It seems that Microsoft had much more to gain from letting its partner fail than helping it to succeed: in the event of a bankruptcy, Microsoft acquired all of Sendo's intellectual property related to the z100 Stinger SmartPhone, and was then free to do whatever it wanted, which in this case turned out to be going behind Sendo's back and making a deal with Orange SPA." Read our original article about this to get more background information.

Comments

It's OK folks,

[countach]

Don't believe this nonsense. For example Microsoft would NEVER, screw over Miguel de Icaza and the MONO effort. Trust them. If Microsoft says they support the MONO effort, we can take them at their word. They are people of high integrity and whatever they say, they mean. They would never lead others along the garden path, with every intention of crushing them later on.

+5 Sarcasm.

Re:Sendo needs better lawyers...

[SerpentMage]

No the argument that Sendo is raising is very legit. Their argument is that they and Microsoft entered into a deal where the aim was to sell product. While they had backdoor clauses, MS, it would appear dealt in bad faith.

Bad Faith is not something to underestimate. Whenever you enter into a contract you have to actually pretend to support the contract. Because otherwise you will be in contempt and be VERY liable. In fact this could get very messy for MS if it is proven that they acted in bad faith.

This could be the case that kills MS. Think about it. This company had a once in a life time offer. They were ready, but the company they wanted to deal with was not. Result, you kill that company. You are liable because potentially the other party could have become very large and very rich.

I guess finally history is catching up to MS.

Enabling environment?

[Allt]

I found this interview with a former employee of Microsoft on Kuro5hin.

You worked at Microsoft for ten years, then left the company two-and-a-half years ago. From your perspective, do you think Microsoft has fundamentally changed as a result of the antitrust lawsuit?
My short answer would be "No".
There were many positive things about the Microsoft work environment. But there were some negatives. People use the term "enabling environment" to mean a situation that encourages someone to act in a negative way, such as drinking alcohol heavily, by mitigating the negative impact of the behavior, and providing tacit approval for it. Well, Microsoft constructed an enabling environment for socially obnoxious behavior: it was welcomed and rationalized into positives. If you were late for meetings it meant you were busy doing important work, if you were extremely confrontational it meant you were passionate about your job, if you required subordinates to work long hours it meant you were committed to the product, if you turned down everyone you interviewed it meant you weren't soft, and so on.
So Microsoft had this system that encouraged and rewarded people who acted a certain way. And some of that behavior trickled out into meetings with customers and partners, where they were correctly seen as negatives and helped foster the anti-Microsoft attitude. But since Microsoft kept hiring and promoting obnoxious people, they kept being obnoxious.

I don't know how much truth lies in this, but when any organization becomes big enough, culture plays a big role in dictating what is allowed and what's not.

Re:duh

[malkavian]

Uhh.. Score 5? Someone's got an odd concept of Capitalism.
Capitalism works fine when everyone's honourable, and keeps their word, and basically plays the game. People make products and make money. Best product wins (votes=money).
MS, as usual, are breaking the rules, and pulling their own game (kill all other contenders), which isn't Capitalism.
In Capitalism, you end up with a flourishing ecosystem of companies providing a variety of competing products. Evolution selects the best.
In the MS game, you end up with one monolithic power providing what it thinks is best for people.
In fact, MS' way is more like communism than capitalism.
"To each unto their needs'..
MS decides what each person needs, and that's what they get, like it or not. It attempts to take all competition out of the arena, so, if you want an office suite, you have MS office, as MS has killed the competition.
So, really, MS is anti-capitalist.

Malk

Re:They're suing *who* again?

[monomania]

there is no (nor should there be any) law against getting into really sweetheart deals at the expense of the other party....

Three scenarios:

1. Your beloved wife dies, and you are paid her life insurance to compensate. You are rich, but miserable.

2. You have grown disenchanted with your marriage, and murder your wife for the insurance money.

3. You actively seek out rich women to marry and murder.

Now, business contracts with such terms as Sendo/MS implemented exist to obtain, if necessary, in worst cases, a situation similar to the First scenario. On the face of the evidence, MS operated according to the Second, and may additionally (upon examination) be shown to have operating along the lines of the Third.

This is not business as usual -- unless you are, say, an Enron executive. And it's a really bad time for MS to be proven of that ilk in court...

Re:How brazen can Microsoft's executives be?

[haggar]

Interestingly, executives in software companies don't seem to learn from history/other's mistakes: I guess you know how MS stole valuable assets and IP from borland trough their engineers - made very high offers to the Borland engineers while contacting with Borland for "cooperation". Well, the same identical thing happened years later to Oracle (with Microsoft, of course), after which MS SQL server started to suck less.