Slashdot Mirror
CEO of TuCloud Dares Microsoft To Sue His New Company
Fluffeh writes "Word from Ars Technica is that OnLive, a service provider that seems to totally flout Microsoft licensing and offers iPad users a Microsoft Desktop for free (or a beefier one for $5) isn't being sued by Microsoft, as this blog quotes: 'We are actively engaged with OnLive with the hope of bringing them into a properly licensed scenario.' The people who are angry include Guise Bule, CEO of tuCloud. He accuses Microsoft of playing favorites with OnLive — whose CEO is a former Microsoft executive — while regularly auditing license compliance for companies like tuCloud that provide legitimate virtual desktop services. Bule is so mad that he says he is forming an entirely new company called DesktopsOnDemand to provide a service identical to OnLive's, complete with licensing violations, and dare Microsoft to take him to court. Bule hopes to force Microsoft into lifting restrictions on virtual desktop licensing that he says inhibit growth in the virtual desktop industry, and seem to apply to everyone except OnLive."
One of the restrictions applied to licensed remote desktop providers is that each user must have his own dedicated machine (pretty onerous in the days of 16+ core servers costing a mere grand or two).
while regularly auditing license compliance for companies like tuCloud that provide legitimate virtual desktop services.
If you own a volume license, yes, they can do that, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
What could possibly go wrong?
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Microsoft buys out OnLive
Microsoft takes a share of OnLive's revenue
Microsoft creates their own offering and puts their new competitors out of business
OnLive pays the licensing fees but receives some sort of "technical pioneer" grant so it evens out.
Finally action instead of words, the licensing scheme that microsoft employs is so far off the mark its impossible to sell if your client isn't as big as Pfizer or GE.
Sounds more like a dig for free marketing. "Hey people! Big nasty Microsoft is suing us because we're a wholesome little company! You should totally give us your business!"
Totally not gonna backfire...
Slashdot: Where opinions are just opinions until you have mod points.
This is not a hard concept you don't poke the bear. Its one thing to setup a service they might like for some reasons and hope they ignore your strained interpretation of the license agreement it's another dare them to sue. Microsoft has an in house legal team, I am sure one or more of those people need a project, this could cost Microsoft next to northern and this guy everything. The only reason I can see to do this is breaking the agreement in court but I doubt that will happen
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Who are OnLive? Oh, that huge company with many many users.
Who are tuCloud? Never heard of them until today, and after this opportunistic publicity grab I probably never will again.
It is always easier to ask forgiveness than permission, but it's easier to find forgiveness when you have a sizeable number of users. Money talks. There's nothing special about OnLive. If any successful company with actual users did the same thing, Microsoft would see an income stream waiting for them, rather than an insect to crush.
DesktopsOnDemand will do fine assuming they follow the OnLive model - start by attracting users with an online gaming service; when you are an established player, start playing fast and loose with licensing, and see what happens. Sadly they screwed that already by announcing an intention to rip Microsoft off on purpose. Bad move.
The reason OnLive gets a pass is because OnLive is a rapidly growing business dominating a completely different market (virtualized gaming) run by a veteran player in the industry, while toCloud is a rinky-dink outfit that has no real prospects for large growth that has to keep telling the world how they are "Virtual Desktop Superheroes" because its so easy to forget.
"His name was James Damore."
It's worth pointing out that OnLive's model requires a machine per user anyway. There's no practical way to put 4 GPUs in a 16-core machine and have them virtualized, one each, to 4 instances of Windows. It's bad enough that each machine has to do video compression as well as running the game. If this is one of tuCloud's issues they're not paying attention to the facts.
And it seems like the guy is just jealous because he hasn't made the connections in the industry. This stuff matters, even if geeks like it or not. This is exactly why LinkedIn, Facebook and other social networks are good. In fact, not only social networks, but whole socializing and making connections with others. It matters, even if geeks try to say that only their actual "skills" should be evaluated. But making connections and socializing is a skill too.
That's one way to look at it. The other is that Microsoft's favouritism has allowed OnLive to grow rapidly and dominate a complete market, while tuCloud has been forced into being a rinky-dink outfit with no real prospects due to Microsoft's abuse of their OS monopoly.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
No, you aren't completely informed. No generally available MS license currently allows for the virtualised provision of Windows 7 as a hosted service - only the Server 2008 licenses allow virtualised service provision. He could do what he wants with the right Windows Server license, but he can't offer a virtualised Win 7 instance in the same manner.
The other way to look at it is that OnLive have been poking around this concept for several years, and are engaged in a private dialog with MS, while this bloke has only been public for a few months and has only talked to the wrong people (the Ars comments point out that he only talked to the RDP guys at MS, not any licensing specialists).
RTFM, this guy is following the rules, to the letter. That means he can only offer the service to people that already pay monster money to Microsoft (and THEN they have to pay him too)
in short his company is ALREADY a customer playing by the established rules (and being audited) trying to ask permission to add more features. While the OnLive people should be raided by the BSA marshals by now... they're getting "talked to" about licensing violations that would get a proper business' doors locked because they've already whipped up huge business in the press.
When Microsoft trots out "piracy" numbers, licensing technicalities like this are EXACTLY what they are going after nowdays. If their "war on piracy" was REAL they'd be sending the BSA with Federal Marshals to lock up OnLive. If there is some new rule that OnLive is getting, why shouldn't the people that ALREADY PAY to have the same feature get the new rules too? Microsoft is still a monopoly and giving new terms to somebody that's not properly paying shouldn't be allowed... as they are interfering with their PAYING customer's business by allowing this.
There's a short blog posting and longer report extract on MS licensing for VDI for multi-tenant service providers over at 360.
It clarifies the position based on discussions with the major vendors involved (Microsoft, VMware, Citrix).
http://360is.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/microsoft-virtual-desktop-licensing.html
Who knows what the situation will be next week/month, but it's a decent explanation on what the state of play is today.
AG
actually, there is specific licensing for virtualized desktops. try looking here http://download.microsoft.com/download/C/6/7/C673E444-6DDD-40B8-B29F-625354F2A8F7/Licensing_Windows_for_Virtual_Desktops_Whitepaper.pdf
The CEO of onlive is a former Microsoft executive.
They'll make some sort of 'agreement' just for public show.
While the OnLive people should be raided by the BSA marshals by now
Copyright issues are a civil matter. Since it seems like Microsoft and OnLive are working it out, there is no reason for MS or BSA to do anything.
A Microsoft spokesperson has responded to Mr. Bule's comment with
"Okay".
...rely on the good will of Microsoft's lawyers. That's about as smart as relying on the soundness of their testing. Legal bills will sink them no matter the right or wrong.
actually, there is specific licensing for virtualized desktops. try looking here http://download.microsoft.com/download/C/6/7/C673E444-6DDD-40B8-B29F-625354F2A8F7/Licensing_Windows_for_Virtual_Desktops_Whitepaper.pdf
And nothing in that white paper actually contradicts what I say - read it :)
No there is license for Windows 7 VDI. My company was looking into doing this to provide a full personal Win 7 Desktop for remote users. We decided to just use Terminal Services instead.
not that the BSA have any real authority to begin with...
2. Virtual Desktop Access (VDA)
The second licensing vehicle for virtual desktops is Virtual Desktop Access (VDA), which is a new license that will come into effect on July
1st, 2010. Customers that want to use devices such as thin clients that do not qualify for Windows client SA would need to license those
devices with a new license called Windows Virtual Desktop Access (Windows VDA) to be able to access a Windows VDI desktop.
Windows VDA is also applicable to 3rd party devices, such as contractor or employee-owned PCs.
Windows VDA (Virtual Desktop Access) is a device based subscription that is available at 100/year/device, and is available through all
major Microsoft volume licensing programs.
Windows VDA extends the benefits of Software Assurance to devices such as thin clients for virtual desktops. This license is required in
addition to the server and management infrastructure for VDI, such as the Microsoft VDI Suite or other 3rd party licensing to enable access.
WINDOWS VDA BENEFITS
PCs covered under Windows Client SA and thin clients licensed with Windows VDA both get the same set of benefits for accessing virtual
desktops. In general the benefits address the major concerns when moving the desktop to the datacenter, but many are forward thinking
around how VDI can enable greater business flexibility. Benefits unique to the Windows VDA license include:
Install Windows 7/Windows Vista/Windows XP virtual machines on any combination of hardware and storage
"What can you do?"
Sue? A publicly traded company should not be able to play favorites when it comes to license enforcement.
while regularly auditing license compliance for companies like tuCloud that provide legitimate virtual desktop services.
If you own a volume license, yes, they can do that, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
There is no such thing as a volume license for Windows -- there's enterprise agreements, and you get a volume license key, but that key is only valid if used to replace the OEM key that comes with new hardware. (I.E., its provided to EA customers so you can push out desktop images to your hardware, but you can only do so to hardware that *came* with an OEM license. There's no concept of a "new" VLK license.)
The *only* legal option companies like this have are getting an OEM distribution license (which Microsoft doesn't do for non-hardware vendors), or use full retail copies. There's nothing MS can do to prevent OnLive from using full retail copies, but at $200ish a VM, the cost to the end user goes up. And what you can't do is use guest accounts and published applications from the cloud, because you don't have CALs for those users.
There are routes that companies can do to make it work, but not routes that somehow magically bypass the cost of buying Windows.
(And, FWIW, I am completely informed here -- I've gone through this process for similar services before.)
Give it 50/50 odds they get sued out of existence. They certainly won't build a big user base given a dare like that.
Why not? Patent trolls play favorites on whom to sue. It's the licensor's right as owner of the IP to do as they wish with their property.
If MS actually stopped all unlicenced use of Windows then they'd soon be a minority OS, they rely on piracy to give them the bulk of the desktop market share. How many people do you know who've actually bought a copy of Windows? It's mostly OEM installations, and when it stops working most people have it replaced by an unlicensed version by a "mate with a disc".
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
And again, that doesn't contradict what I have said - VDA requires you to issue a license to a given device, it doesnt allow you to swap licenses around between devices ad hoc. That means you cannot provision a virtualised Windows 7 license for a hosted service, in the way that this guy wants - he would have to have one Win 7 license associated with each end user device.
Again, there is no current license which allows you to sell a virtualised Win 7 hosted service.
Who's angry that Microsoft is inhibiting it's own growth? Who cares. Funny to watch it happen, though.
... let me get some popcorn.
The fact that there would be need for a "licensing specialist" speaks volumes about the complexity of navigating the Microsoft licensing system. I think the major problem that MS is trying to stop is from somebody offering the same functionality to desktop users. Imagine a system where Mac and Linux users wouldn't have to buy a Windows license to access a full windows desktop. This could make switching to Mac (or Linux) a lot easier for most people. MS would sell a lot less licenses if a single license could be time-shared between 20 or 30 users
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
A single license can be time shared between 20 or 30 users, it just has to be on its own machine.
I've done the whole MS licensing dance, as part of a budget where I was responsible for $1.5million of buying, and to be fair MS licensing is fine in 99% of cases, but it's that other 1% which you need help for. And this falls into that 1%, because neither OnLive nor this guy want to do what most other businesses want to do.
The fact that there would be need for a "licensing specialist" speaks volumes about the complexity of navigating the Microsoft licensing system.
I was researching Sharepoint a couple years ago. In Microsoft's FAQ for it, where I thought I'd find lots of technical Q&As, the section on licensing was longer than all other sections combined.
A software product/service that requires a lawyer more than a technical person to evaluate? Screw it.
Geek doesn't understand why personal relationships are helpful to business.
NEVER SAW THAT ONE COMING
Gifts above a certain value are taxable. I'm not sure if that counts for gifts between companies. The story about Inida taxing "angel funding" is similar to this, and if one company is creating an uneven playing field by giving gifts to another company then that is not desirable in a free market. It could even come under antitrust, if they are doing this to increase Windows' market share in the mobile virtual desktop space.
The complaints from tuCloud aren't new for those in this space of IT. Brian Madden and several other forums / experts in the field have commented on the issues with MS Licensing and OnLive going back at least a year.
Here is the latest I have seen on the issue:
http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2012/03/09/gasp-turns-out-onlive-really-isn-t-in-compliance-with-microsoft-licensing.aspx
The real issue isn't that tuCloud is small and complaining, but rather MS is vastly limiting the use of possible VDI-based solutions based on their "old" licensing model.
Exactly, the major problems are that the VDA license is *per device* instead of per user, that the license is only available to volume license customers, and that MS has told hosting providers that they must maintain separate physical servers and *storage* for each customer. Almost every other piece of MS software is available to service providers under reasonable rental terms so that they can provide their customers a convenient service, it's only the desktop license where MS has repeatedly refused to offer terms that their end users and service provider partners find reasonable.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
So the solution is to force copyright holders to sue everyone, whether they want to sue or not?
I thought twice before writing this. I know 1000 Windows liking Slashdotters are going to mod this down and call me a Linux fanboi but really? This kind of courtroom arguing seems so petty when viewed from the outside when so many great OSs are free for as many users as the hardware can handle. I just don't get what there is to Windows that is worth licensing at all. Don't get me wrong, it is much more stable than it was 10 years ago but what is special about it? Nothing that I can see...
If there is some new rule that OnLive is getting, why shouldn't the people that ALREADY PAY to have the same feature get the new rules too?
Maybe because when they established their private contract with Microsoft those terms were not in it? If Business A makes one contractual arrangement with Business B, and then Business C makes a better deal with Business B, that in no way invalidates the first contract unless it is specified in some way in the contract that the deal will remain equitable with any other later deals.
What it does is give grounds for renegotiation of contract terms.
Guise Bule should stop whining!
If he don't like the license restrictions of Windows, then shut up and go elsewhere.
Instead of trying to force Microsoft into lifting restrictions on virtual desktop licensing he can go use Linux or BSD instead.
You could just buy a volume license. Oh, but no, that's just silly. Go yell at microsoft to sue you instead.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
So I'm curious, what licensing scheme must services like AWS or other virtual desktop services use? If I sign up for a virtual Windows instance at an hourly price, and stop the instance after a few hours, I will pay much less than $10.
Do they buy a bunch of licenses, and then only allow that number of virtual machines to run at a time? Does Microsoft offer a virtualization license?
Form a shell company to force a monopoly to take action against you and your competitor.
Action taken: you force monopolist to take similar action against your competitor and Shell company goes into bankruptcy.
No Action: Profit
AWS runs Windows Server, which has very different licensing (including VM).
Plus, the up-front cost of reserved instances covers the license cost.
These companies are about providing either terminal services infrastructure or VDI infrastructure, both of which don't have license types for that kind of service. (Note, AWS doesn't have the terminal services role, for example.)
Actually I don't think any licence is ever simple for anyone except lawyers, and sometimes is still only an interpretation.
My company was trying to determine if we could use the free version of Google Maps, but the licence didn't make it clear. In the licence Google says not to contact them about the agreement, but consult a lawyer.
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Wait... are we still claiming that Microsoft has an OS monopoly? Because I thought we are talking about tablets, and iOS and Android seem to have cornered the market....
A business in the US can't refuse service to someone because they are black. Should an IP owner be allowed to refuse to license their IP to a business that is minority owned?
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Unfortunately, an entity that brings suit against another entity is not required to bring suit against every other entity that does the same thing as the entity they actually sued.
And the "It's ok for me to do wrong because that other person/company/country is also doing wrong" argument doesn't work in either a legal or moral sense.
Or can you run all your windows programs on Mac or Linux without having to buy a Windows license?
Come on, kiddies! You'#re always whining about how Linux or Mac is no good because it can't run "Windows Super Duper Program Application Z".
But, when it comes to control over who can use the OS, it's all "Well, isn't Linux good enough for you?!?!?!".
How could OnLive not be legit -- they were approved by Apple for the App Store! :-)
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Isn't that how it already works for trademarks? If you want to have exclusive rights, you either have to enforce it or lose it?
Unfortunately, while the gaming service is now available in Canada the desktop isn't yet. So I can't say if it's worth the trouble or not.
This is going to blow up big, for both MS and TuCloud, I think. Considering the obvious intent Microsoft has with pushing Windows 8 as a service instead of a product (as they're already doing with Office 365 and will be tying the next version of Exchange), they're probably going to try to lock any competition out.
I'd not be surprised if OnLive is a project planned internally to Microsoft, and they moved it "outside" to avoid scrutiny and/or Justice Dept. probes, or something like that. The "offer" they'll give OnLive is to become a part of Microsoft, or something like it - and it'll have been planned since before OnLive first broke soil.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
While the OnLive people should be raided by the BSA marshals by now
Copyright issues are a civil matter. Since it seems like Microsoft and OnLive are working it out, there is no reason for MS or BSA to do anything.
Copyright issues haven't been just a civil matter in the US for years now. Copyright infringement is a federal crime against the state, AS WELL as being a civil matter.
How do they know OnLive don't have a private agreement with MS for licensing? Just because MS make the terms extortionate to everyone else, doesn't mean they can't have a special agreement with OnLive that effectively forces any competitors out of the market. That's what happens when you build a business that depends on a single supplier, they can enter the market themselves or favour your competitor and your utterly screwed.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Why not? A publicly traded company's only duty is to make money for its shareholders... That duty is not incompatible with the goals of favoritism in other markets... If OnLive comes to dominate its market, while still being utterly dependent on MS, then MS will have huge leverage over them and be able to take the lion share of the profit.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
from tfa
if that's the case, microsoft won't give a shit about them... maybe a threatening letter or two but no legal action -- in order to avoid the possibility, however remote, of a bad ruling in court that affects their licenses and built-in restrictions (and in turn, their own bottom line)
corporations are not people
Can we stop already with the incorrect summary of Ford vs. Dodge Brothers?
http://www.virginialawbusrev.org/VLBR3-1pdfs/Stout.pdf
And since when can MSFT not sell what it wants to who it wants? if I own a company I can decide to sell to Joe but not to Bob, as long as i'm not doing it because of race/creed/religion/etc so if I am friends with joe and want to give him a better deal WTF is it any of bob's business? if he don't like the terms he is welcome to talk to Apple or build his own Linux. I am getting so damned tired of this "Waah we don't like the way you do business so we should get to do what we want waaah!" bullshit. you want the product, you pay what the owner says to pay, don't like it? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Insightful? Really? Have we met? Hi this is the USA the most sue happy place on earth! if you don't have every damned thing with a bazillion pages of lawyerese full of CYA and you have MSFT money? Prepare to have you ass hit harder than a Bangkok whore on coupon day. like it or not the laws are written by lawyers who naturally want more business. you don't dot them Is or cross them Ts then SOMEBODY will nail your ass if you got cash, and MSFT has got cash. I bet if you look at Apple and Google business contracts they are just as long, simply for CYA reasons, its just how we roll here like it or not.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
No, but if market is being disrupted by a large gift of free licences to one party, then the FTC could ask the IRS to tax them on that gift.
I think that is appropriate for trademarks, but I don't think it is for copyright. This is a trade issue and so should be addressed by the FTC - it could be monopolistic practice by Microsoft, or it could be a taxable gift to OnLive.
Well, I am not sure if tuCloud guys are really that angry on this issue or are just doing this merely to grab media attention. There are many other major players in tuCloud's industry such as RackSpace, dinCloud, Desktone.. Far more bigger and better than tuCloud, but there was no undue aggressive response or statements by them were recorded.
Here is another related article to this topic: http://www.dincloud.com/blog/ONLive-Microsoft-Story-Windows-7-licensing Hope you will like it. Thanks.