Microsoft's $45 billion (or whatever) in the bank is nothing more than a red herring. The truly important number for Microsoft is the price of MSFT stock. Most of Microsoft's executives have a significant amount of cash tied up in MSFT. Not to mention the large investments in MSFT that the company makes, and the fact that MSFT stock options save the company billions in taxes each year.
When investors realize that Microsoft no longer merits their price/earnings ratio of nearly 30 then Microsoft's stock is going to fall out of the sky, and Microsoft's biggest asset, their ever-increasing stock price, will be gone forever.
The difference is that OpenOffice.org is Free Software. You can download the program from the Internet. The city of Munich could even make money selling install CDs.
Microsoft isn't worried about PR. They are worried about the thousands of German businesses that are going to be drawn inexorably towards Free Software. Lots of companies have to deal with the Munich city government, and the default formats for dealing with this organization just switched from MS Office to OpenOffice.org.
The trickiest part about using Free Software is dealing with proprietary document formats. Read a review of any Office Suite for Linux and the first thing that the reviewer writes about is the ability to share documents with users of MS Office. When OpenOffice gets a negative review it is almost never because the tools are not sufficiently capable, but rather it is because the MS Office conversion filters aren't up to the task. Companies in Munich now can deal with their city government without resorting to these proprietary MS Office formats. In fact, the bureacrats are probably going to mandate the use of OpenOffice.org formats. They might not even do it on purpose, but you can bet that when the government employees have problems opening up a document that they will point the person towards the OpenOffice.org website. It probably won't be too long before a significant part of the Munich business community uses OpenOffice.org formats as their new lingua franca.
What's worse, there is a good chance that many other German cities will follow suit. Microsoft could very easily find that one of the largest economies in the world is no longer interested in MS Office.
Even so, Microsoft's only workable response to this is to make Windows harder to install without a license, a move which will anger paying customers. Microsoft can't hardly sue Thailand.
Microsoft's other option is to turn Windows into a loss leader for other goods and services. If Windows were free (as in beer) Linux would lose much of its appeal.
Shame on you for not reading the article. This coat not only has a trigger, but it has to be armed before it will work. When it is armed, the jacket makes an audible noise (sparks actually arc across the shoulder).
The point that you are missing is that SCO voluntarily distributed a version of Linux with the supposedly offensive code. Sure, IBM might have put it in the kernel (yeah right), but SCO still distributed the kernel all the same.
Once I have a copy of that code, then I have a legal license to it. I didn't purchase my CD from IBM, I purchased it from SCO (no, I didn't actually pay money for SCO Linux, it's just an example). SCO should have been looking at the source code before they distributed it. It is not my fault that they didn't. The time for SCO to complain was before they distributed the software.
Not that it matters, IBM didn't steal SCO's code and paste it into Linux.
Re:Is FSF ever going to go for Damages? (& how
on
FSF Threatens GPL Lawsuit
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
BUT there should be costs to violate the GPL, if only as a deterrent. Otherwise people will try to get away with it and only come clean when FSF gets huffy and puffy and simply distribute the source code in question. Its like bank robbers stealing from a bank, getting caught, and only have to give back the money w/o penalties.
The Free Software Foundation wants people to use GPLed software, and you don't entice people to use your software by crucifying organizations that make licensing mistakes. They don't want money, they want source code.
That's why the GPL has never been tested in court. There have been plenty of organizations that have violated the GPL at one time or another, but the FSF has simply waved their big stick around while whispering quietly that if the offender releases their source code they will be forgiven. This tactic has been wildly successful. Pretty much every major development house on the planet has some GPLed software that they redistribute, including companies like Apple, IBM, and even Microsoft.
If the FSF were in this gig for the money (or to punish commercial developers), then you would be right, but they aren't. When the goal is Free Software, then releasing the source code in question is good enough.
Squirrels are too small too make much of a meal, but they are pretty tasty if you can catch enough. The secret is to make sure that you don't overcook them...
Oh, you meant if you like looking at squirrels. Uh, nevermind.
You've actually got that backwards. Caldera bought SCO's UNIX intellectual property using the money they made in their IPO. However, Caldera got trounced by RedHat in the commercial Linux game, and so they changed their name to SCO and concentrated on the commercial UNIX products that they had bought from the former Santa Cruz Operations.
Either way the recent UnitedLinux-based SCO Linux distribution was distributed by Caldera-SCO, and the binaries and source to the Linux kernel (and most of the rest of the distribution) was distributed under the GPL. If IBM bought a copy of that distribution (and I am sure they can dig one up), then they have every right to re-release that source code under the terms of the GPL. SCO can pretend that they didn't *mean* to release this source code under the GPL, but it is not IBM's fault that they did.
The reason is simple. Microsoft doesn't really believe that SCO has a case. If SCO really had a case the last thing they would do is talk to journalists. The reason that IBM hasn't responded in the press to SCO's statements is that IBM knows that these statements can be used as evidence. SCO knows this as well, but they don't care. They aren't trying to win a court case, they are simply launching an advertising campaign against Linux on a budget. Instead of taking out ads they simply start a $1 billion suit against IBM and wait for the journalists to call them.
Microsoft knows that anything that discredits Linux helps their cause, and so they have pitched in some money to strengthen SCO's case in the court of public opinion. If Microsoft were actually concerned about SCO's IP they would already have licensed it. SCO had plenty of licensees to their IP. The reason that SCO and Microsoft are discrediting Linux is because both of these companies are vulnerable to Linux growth.
Geez, that's all a cyclist needs, some goofball tootling along at barely over walking speeds in a bicycle lane. Riding a bicycle in traffic is dangerous enough already.
Yes, Microsoft has 85%+ profit margins on Windows and MS Office, they can certainly afford to lower their prices and still make a pile of cash, but they won't.
The reason is simple. Microsoft executives have a great deal of their own personal fortunes wrapped up in MSFT stock. If Microsoft's profit margins go down, the stock price will follow, and with Microsoft's current ridiculously high price/earnings ratio the price of MSFT stock will not just drop, it will fall out of the sky.
Yes, I don't agree with the law. Apparently Mr. Ashcroft doesn't either.
I personally can't wait for Linux to achieve Total World Domination, but I believe that Microsoft has the right to try and compete. If they want to give software away, they should be able to.
Not that it matters much what we think. Even if a Democrat gains the whitehouse in the next election there isn't much of a chance that the DOJ will go after Microsoft again. Especially if the economy is still slow.
Microsoft won't be a monopoly by the time that the government looks at this case again. The market will have done its job without any help from those pesky meddlers at the DOJ.
Ok then, what shall we do in 10 years when OpenOffice is the de-facto standard and it comes pre-installed on every machine and has 99% of the market. In that case OpenOffice's price will almost certainly "stifle competition." What shall we do then?
If it hadn't been for the fact that Microsoft started wielding their market share in ways that made their customers uncomfortable no one would be interested in OpenOffice in the slightest. In this case the market is working just fine all by itself. Creating a bunch of rules about what can be bundled with an operating system is only likely to make things worse, not better.
I wouldn't blame you for being upset if you paid full price for MS Office and your competitors got it for free. I am just saying that it is well within Microsoft's rights. It's their software, they can give it away to whomever they choose.
Clearly the correct approach if this bothers you is to switch to Microsoft's competition. This may even persuad Microsoft to give you MS office for free.
The real irony is that SCO isn't really SCO at all. What we currently call "SCO" is nothing more than Caldera, the company that ran their Linux IPO to enough cash to buy out SCO's UNIX holdings.
Microsoft has just as much right to give their software away as Sun does. They also have every right to choose who they want to give their software to.
If you don't like Microsoft's business practices, then don't buy (or use) their software.
I love Linux, and sit down all day, every day, at a Linux box, but in this case I would tend to agree with Ashcroft. The market is taking care of Microsoft without any problem whatsoever.
Microsoft has been beating their competitors over the head for years by being "good enough" at a lower price. Microsoft executives were part of the wave that put commodity PC hardware everywhere, do you think that they don't know what commodity software is likely to do to their business plan?
Microsoft knows that in the long run the OS and the office suite (and a whole pile of other software) are going to become commodity products. That is why they are willing to lose so much money starting up some of their other businesses. Microsoft's current business plan has serious problems.
However, in the short term Microsoft has huge profit margins on Windows and MS Office. As long as they can keep up the appearance that they have a workable business model they get to rake in billions of dollars in cash, and, more importantly, they get to sell their stock options at an astronomically high price/earnings ratio. In other words, Microsoft's current business plan is part shell game and part extortion racket.
Microsoft could make Linux and OpenOffice disappear tomorrow simply by drastically reducing prices. Only the hardest core of the Free Software movement would be interested in Linux and OpenOffice if Windows and MS Office cost 30% of their current price, and Microsoft has that much profit margin to give. The reason that Microsoft doesn't respond this way is that the Microsoft executives are more concerned about their own personal fortunes (tied up primarily in MSFT stock) than in the longterm health of the company. If Microsoft lowered prices to compete with Linux then MSFT stock would drop like a rock.
Eventually Microsoft will lower prices to compete with Linux, but they won't do so until they have no other choice.
Sun is willing to give OpenOffice away for free, and they even will happily give you the source code. What exactly is the difference between giving away OpenOffice and giving away Microsoft Office?
Answer: there isn't any difference other than the fact that you probably like Sun, and you don't like Microsoft.
The fact of the matter is that, despite what Microsoft says publicly, the cost of MS Office and Windows is definitely a factor. Competing with Free Software in the long run is going to require that Microsoft lower their prices substantially. This is especially true when you are talking about key accounts like governments and large institutions. Microsoft will do what it takes to maintain these accounts.
The good news is that Microsoft can't really afford to lower the prices on their core products of Windows and MS Office. Sure, they have billions in the bank, but that doesn't mean that they want to become a charity. Microsoft currently has a price/earnings ratio of about 30. That means that Wall Street expects a very healthy amount of growth from Microsoft. As these discounts cut into Microsoft's profit margins and revenues then this trend will negatively effect MSFT's stock price. $43 billion is a lot of money for a business to have in the bank, but it is peanuts compared to the amount of wealth that Microsoft executives have tied up in their stock.
When push comes to shove Microsoft execs will defend their stock price at all costs, and that means coercing more money out of their current customers, not less.
The reason that Microsoft is concerned about governments is that they know that governments have the power to set de-facto standards. If a business partner sends me an unreadable document I can probably work something out with him or her. If the government demands that any electronic communication be in a particular format, that's the format that you use. What's more, nearly everyone has at least some business contact with the government. If a government switches to StarOffice/OpenOffice then you can bet that within a few years StarOffice formats will be the standard in that particular country for almost everything. It won't matter that it some ways OpenOffice isn't as good as MS Word, because it is definitely "good enough," the price is right, and it is the format that you need to use to communicate with the government.
Large institutions are a similar deal. If your University demands that you turn in your assignments in Microsoft Office formats, then you don't use WordPerfect or OpenWriter (or if you do you make sure to double check the formatting with MS Office before actually turning the assignment in. Likewise, if you supply parts to Ford Motor Company and they require that documents you submit be in MS Word format, then you don't use something else.
Microsoft can't afford to lose these big accounts. If they do their entire monopoly will start to unravel around them. It is far better business for Microsoft to give away software to these key accounts than to lose them to the competition.
Actually, IBM won their suit. Not that it helped them in the long run. Customers, generally speaking, find ways out of abusive relationships, and Big Blue's old relationship with their customers certainly qualified.
The market is currently correcting itself in regards to Microsoft's current monopoly as well, and the DOJ has almost nothing to do with this correction. The reason that Linux and Free Software are becoming so popular is that there are a lot of companies that are looking for a way out of their current abusive relationship with Microsoft. If Microsoft spent more time worrying about their customers and less time worrying about their bottom line then the Linux threat would disappear overnight.
Of course, MSFT would lose over 66% of its value in the process, but that's going to happen anyhow. Microsoft is no longer a growth company, and their Price/Earnings ratio will come down one way or another.
IGS has a good reputation for supporting whatever you happen to use. However, you can't expect the fine folks at IGS to be real excited about selling your boss on the idea of using OpenSSH and VNC. Those guys are salesmen, and they will undoubtedly see that your boss is wavering on the idea of using Free Software to fill important roles. A few quick sales pitches from the folks at IGS about some really neat IBM tools and VNC and OpenSSH are torpedoed (never mind that VNC and OpenSSH would be cheaper and easier).
On the other hand, if you simply got a quote from IGS as to what VNC and OpenSSH support would cost that could very easily be used as ammunition for their use. I certainly agree that IGS would be the place to call, you just would have to be very careful.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's $45 billion (or whatever) in the bank is nothing more than a red herring. The truly important number for Microsoft is the price of MSFT stock. Most of Microsoft's executives have a significant amount of cash tied up in MSFT. Not to mention the large investments in MSFT that the company makes, and the fact that MSFT stock options save the company billions in taxes each year.
When investors realize that Microsoft no longer merits their price/earnings ratio of nearly 30 then Microsoft's stock is going to fall out of the sky, and Microsoft's biggest asset, their ever-increasing stock price, will be gone forever.
The difference is that OpenOffice.org is Free Software. You can download the program from the Internet. The city of Munich could even make money selling install CDs.
Microsoft isn't worried about PR. They are worried about the thousands of German businesses that are going to be drawn inexorably towards Free Software. Lots of companies have to deal with the Munich city government, and the default formats for dealing with this organization just switched from MS Office to OpenOffice.org.
The trickiest part about using Free Software is dealing with proprietary document formats. Read a review of any Office Suite for Linux and the first thing that the reviewer writes about is the ability to share documents with users of MS Office. When OpenOffice gets a negative review it is almost never because the tools are not sufficiently capable, but rather it is because the MS Office conversion filters aren't up to the task. Companies in Munich now can deal with their city government without resorting to these proprietary MS Office formats. In fact, the bureacrats are probably going to mandate the use of OpenOffice.org formats. They might not even do it on purpose, but you can bet that when the government employees have problems opening up a document that they will point the person towards the OpenOffice.org website. It probably won't be too long before a significant part of the Munich business community uses OpenOffice.org formats as their new lingua franca.
What's worse, there is a good chance that many other German cities will follow suit. Microsoft could very easily find that one of the largest economies in the world is no longer interested in MS Office.
Even so, Microsoft's only workable response to this is to make Windows harder to install without a license, a move which will anger paying customers. Microsoft can't hardly sue Thailand.
Microsoft's other option is to turn Windows into a loss leader for other goods and services. If Windows were free (as in beer) Linux would lose much of its appeal.
Shame on you for not reading the article. This coat not only has a trigger, but it has to be armed before it will work. When it is armed, the jacket makes an audible noise (sparks actually arc across the shoulder).
The point that you are missing is that SCO voluntarily distributed a version of Linux with the supposedly offensive code. Sure, IBM might have put it in the kernel (yeah right), but SCO still distributed the kernel all the same.
Once I have a copy of that code, then I have a legal license to it. I didn't purchase my CD from IBM, I purchased it from SCO (no, I didn't actually pay money for SCO Linux, it's just an example). SCO should have been looking at the source code before they distributed it. It is not my fault that they didn't. The time for SCO to complain was before they distributed the software.
Not that it matters, IBM didn't steal SCO's code and paste it into Linux.
The Free Software Foundation wants people to use GPLed software, and you don't entice people to use your software by crucifying organizations that make licensing mistakes. They don't want money, they want source code.
That's why the GPL has never been tested in court. There have been plenty of organizations that have violated the GPL at one time or another, but the FSF has simply waved their big stick around while whispering quietly that if the offender releases their source code they will be forgiven. This tactic has been wildly successful. Pretty much every major development house on the planet has some GPLed software that they redistribute, including companies like Apple, IBM, and even Microsoft.
If the FSF were in this gig for the money (or to punish commercial developers), then you would be right, but they aren't. When the goal is Free Software, then releasing the source code in question is good enough.
Squirrels are too small too make much of a meal, but they are pretty tasty if you can catch enough. The secret is to make sure that you don't overcook them...
Oh, you meant if you like looking at squirrels. Uh, nevermind.
You've actually got that backwards. Caldera bought SCO's UNIX intellectual property using the money they made in their IPO. However, Caldera got trounced by RedHat in the commercial Linux game, and so they changed their name to SCO and concentrated on the commercial UNIX products that they had bought from the former Santa Cruz Operations.
Either way the recent UnitedLinux-based SCO Linux distribution was distributed by Caldera-SCO, and the binaries and source to the Linux kernel (and most of the rest of the distribution) was distributed under the GPL. If IBM bought a copy of that distribution (and I am sure they can dig one up), then they have every right to re-release that source code under the terms of the GPL. SCO can pretend that they didn't *mean* to release this source code under the GPL, but it is not IBM's fault that they did.
The reason is simple. Microsoft doesn't really believe that SCO has a case. If SCO really had a case the last thing they would do is talk to journalists. The reason that IBM hasn't responded in the press to SCO's statements is that IBM knows that these statements can be used as evidence. SCO knows this as well, but they don't care. They aren't trying to win a court case, they are simply launching an advertising campaign against Linux on a budget. Instead of taking out ads they simply start a $1 billion suit against IBM and wait for the journalists to call them.
Microsoft knows that anything that discredits Linux helps their cause, and so they have pitched in some money to strengthen SCO's case in the court of public opinion. If Microsoft were actually concerned about SCO's IP they would already have licensed it. SCO had plenty of licensees to their IP. The reason that SCO and Microsoft are discrediting Linux is because both of these companies are vulnerable to Linux growth.
Geez, that's all a cyclist needs, some goofball tootling along at barely over walking speeds in a bicycle lane. Riding a bicycle in traffic is dangerous enough already.
Yes, Microsoft has 85%+ profit margins on Windows and MS Office, they can certainly afford to lower their prices and still make a pile of cash, but they won't.
The reason is simple. Microsoft executives have a great deal of their own personal fortunes wrapped up in MSFT stock. If Microsoft's profit margins go down, the stock price will follow, and with Microsoft's current ridiculously high price/earnings ratio the price of MSFT stock will not just drop, it will fall out of the sky.
Yes, I don't agree with the law. Apparently Mr. Ashcroft doesn't either.
I personally can't wait for Linux to achieve Total World Domination, but I believe that Microsoft has the right to try and compete. If they want to give software away, they should be able to.
Not that it matters much what we think. Even if a Democrat gains the whitehouse in the next election there isn't much of a chance that the DOJ will go after Microsoft again. Especially if the economy is still slow.
Microsoft won't be a monopoly by the time that the government looks at this case again. The market will have done its job without any help from those pesky meddlers at the DOJ.
What is it with Utah software companies? Heck, I am Mormon myself, and I still don't understand it.
Ok then, what shall we do in 10 years when OpenOffice is the de-facto standard and it comes pre-installed on every machine and has 99% of the market. In that case OpenOffice's price will almost certainly "stifle competition." What shall we do then?
If it hadn't been for the fact that Microsoft started wielding their market share in ways that made their customers uncomfortable no one would be interested in OpenOffice in the slightest. In this case the market is working just fine all by itself. Creating a bunch of rules about what can be bundled with an operating system is only likely to make things worse, not better.
I wouldn't blame you for being upset if you paid full price for MS Office and your competitors got it for free. I am just saying that it is well within Microsoft's rights. It's their software, they can give it away to whomever they choose.
Clearly the correct approach if this bothers you is to switch to Microsoft's competition. This may even persuad Microsoft to give you MS office for free.
SCO's latest Linux distro was nothing more than rebranded SuSE (er... UnitedLinux).
The real irony is that SCO isn't really SCO at all. What we currently call "SCO" is nothing more than Caldera, the company that ran their Linux IPO to enough cash to buy out SCO's UNIX holdings.
Microsoft has just as much right to give their software away as Sun does. They also have every right to choose who they want to give their software to.
If you don't like Microsoft's business practices, then don't buy (or use) their software.
I love Linux, and sit down all day, every day, at a Linux box, but in this case I would tend to agree with Ashcroft. The market is taking care of Microsoft without any problem whatsoever.
Microsoft has been beating their competitors over the head for years by being "good enough" at a lower price. Microsoft executives were part of the wave that put commodity PC hardware everywhere, do you think that they don't know what commodity software is likely to do to their business plan?
Microsoft knows that in the long run the OS and the office suite (and a whole pile of other software) are going to become commodity products. That is why they are willing to lose so much money starting up some of their other businesses. Microsoft's current business plan has serious problems.
However, in the short term Microsoft has huge profit margins on Windows and MS Office. As long as they can keep up the appearance that they have a workable business model they get to rake in billions of dollars in cash, and, more importantly, they get to sell their stock options at an astronomically high price/earnings ratio. In other words, Microsoft's current business plan is part shell game and part extortion racket.
Microsoft could make Linux and OpenOffice disappear tomorrow simply by drastically reducing prices. Only the hardest core of the Free Software movement would be interested in Linux and OpenOffice if Windows and MS Office cost 30% of their current price, and Microsoft has that much profit margin to give. The reason that Microsoft doesn't respond this way is that the Microsoft executives are more concerned about their own personal fortunes (tied up primarily in MSFT stock) than in the longterm health of the company. If Microsoft lowered prices to compete with Linux then MSFT stock would drop like a rock.
Eventually Microsoft will lower prices to compete with Linux, but they won't do so until they have no other choice.
Sun is willing to give OpenOffice away for free, and they even will happily give you the source code. What exactly is the difference between giving away OpenOffice and giving away Microsoft Office?
Answer: there isn't any difference other than the fact that you probably like Sun, and you don't like Microsoft.
The fact of the matter is that, despite what Microsoft says publicly, the cost of MS Office and Windows is definitely a factor. Competing with Free Software in the long run is going to require that Microsoft lower their prices substantially. This is especially true when you are talking about key accounts like governments and large institutions. Microsoft will do what it takes to maintain these accounts.
The good news is that Microsoft can't really afford to lower the prices on their core products of Windows and MS Office. Sure, they have billions in the bank, but that doesn't mean that they want to become a charity. Microsoft currently has a price/earnings ratio of about 30. That means that Wall Street expects a very healthy amount of growth from Microsoft. As these discounts cut into Microsoft's profit margins and revenues then this trend will negatively effect MSFT's stock price. $43 billion is a lot of money for a business to have in the bank, but it is peanuts compared to the amount of wealth that Microsoft executives have tied up in their stock.
When push comes to shove Microsoft execs will defend their stock price at all costs, and that means coercing more money out of their current customers, not less.
The reason that Microsoft is concerned about governments is that they know that governments have the power to set de-facto standards. If a business partner sends me an unreadable document I can probably work something out with him or her. If the government demands that any electronic communication be in a particular format, that's the format that you use. What's more, nearly everyone has at least some business contact with the government. If a government switches to StarOffice/OpenOffice then you can bet that within a few years StarOffice formats will be the standard in that particular country for almost everything. It won't matter that it some ways OpenOffice isn't as good as MS Word, because it is definitely "good enough," the price is right, and it is the format that you need to use to communicate with the government.
Large institutions are a similar deal. If your University demands that you turn in your assignments in Microsoft Office formats, then you don't use WordPerfect or OpenWriter (or if you do you make sure to double check the formatting with MS Office before actually turning the assignment in. Likewise, if you supply parts to Ford Motor Company and they require that documents you submit be in MS Word format, then you don't use something else.
Microsoft can't afford to lose these big accounts. If they do their entire monopoly will start to unravel around them. It is far better business for Microsoft to give away software to these key accounts than to lose them to the competition.
Actually, IBM won their suit. Not that it helped them in the long run. Customers, generally speaking, find ways out of abusive relationships, and Big Blue's old relationship with their customers certainly qualified.
The market is currently correcting itself in regards to Microsoft's current monopoly as well, and the DOJ has almost nothing to do with this correction. The reason that Linux and Free Software are becoming so popular is that there are a lot of companies that are looking for a way out of their current abusive relationship with Microsoft. If Microsoft spent more time worrying about their customers and less time worrying about their bottom line then the Linux threat would disappear overnight.
Of course, MSFT would lose over 66% of its value in the process, but that's going to happen anyhow. Microsoft is no longer a growth company, and their Price/Earnings ratio will come down one way or another.
IGS has a good reputation for supporting whatever you happen to use. However, you can't expect the fine folks at IGS to be real excited about selling your boss on the idea of using OpenSSH and VNC. Those guys are salesmen, and they will undoubtedly see that your boss is wavering on the idea of using Free Software to fill important roles. A few quick sales pitches from the folks at IGS about some really neat IBM tools and VNC and OpenSSH are torpedoed (never mind that VNC and OpenSSH would be cheaper and easier).
On the other hand, if you simply got a quote from IGS as to what VNC and OpenSSH support would cost that could very easily be used as ammunition for their use. I certainly agree that IGS would be the place to call, you just would have to be very careful.