I never said it wasn't an indicator but it in no way guarantees decreased revenue in the future. A decrease in contracts doesn't even necessarily say anything about Microsoft. There is a general wariness in the market right now and nobody is interested in locking themselves into long term contracts at this point.
There are way too many factors for a serious analyst to take that as any serious indicator. You'd be a fool to dump now (especially since it is climbing as we speak).
Actually Office is not standard on most PC's today. The success of Office is entirely due to its popularity in the corporate world. Go out to Dell and price a new PC. You'll notice that WordPerfect is the default and Works is available at around the same price. Office is an expensive upgrade.
I would also argue that Windows sales are helped by the fact that most people don't even realize there is an alternative.
Revenue is not the same thing as profit. Revenue is your gross income. Profit is your net after expenses. If you look at their financial statements and the MD&A you will notice that the decrease in profit is due to "$1.31 billion in stock based compensation expense associated with the employee stock option transfer."
There is no spin here except for your post. If you eliminate the effect of the stock options their expenses as a % of revenue actually decreases.
According to their Annual Reports MD&A they make a profit in Client (Desktop OS), Server, and Information Worker (Office, Visio, etc.). They lost money on Business Solutions (Great Plains Acct Software, etc.), MSN, Mobile and Embedded, Home Entertainment (XBox, etc.), and Other (which had something to do with the sale of Expedia).
Interestingly enough the server sales (which is where is and can do the most damager) is not that big a part of their income. Windows (for the desktop) and Office and really their moneymakers (and probably will be for quite some time.
Actually you have it backwards. What you are referring to is accounts receivable. Unearned revenue is revenue received for services/products not yet earned. See my full definition below.
Unearned revenue is actually not a P&L item. It is a liability on a companies Balance Sheet. If I prepay for a service the company has to recognize that revenue over the life of the service. So if I pay for a years worth of service from Microsoft for $12,000 they can recognize $1000 each month as revenue and reduce the liability by $1000 until the 12 months are up and the $12,000 has entirely hit the P&L.
The decrease in unearned revenue means that people aren't locking themselves into Microsoft but it doesn't reflect at all on what Microsofts future revenue will be. If anything companies that do end up sticking with Microsoft may pay more in the long run by not taking advantage of prepayment discounts.
You know people say this all the time but I have never seen anything official about it. According the USPTO all you have to do is "use the mark on or in connection with the goods and/or services in the registration and files all necessary documentation in the USPTO at the appropriate times." I even googled for it but only found it is posts like this one. Do you have anything that supports that assertion? Please note that I am not saying that it isn't the case but I am wondering if it isn't just a misconception that has been passed around so long that it has become gospel.
Well if you can go back in time a couple hundred years before the first trademark laws in France and the UK and change them then that is fine. Otherwise common words make up the majority of trademarks and you would have to grandfather them in. You can't expect companies doing business under a common word to change their name now. You could say change the law on a go forward basis but the damage is done. It really isn't all that bad as long as companies don't try to stretch it too far which is what the courts are for.
Bonus points for whoever knows the first trademark in the UK. Here's a hint - I could go for one right now.
I have actually never used any of them but at least a Kleenex I have heard used. I guess it is just a regional thing. The only time I have ever heard hoover used outside of referring to the the Company, President, or Dam is when referring to a girl who gives good head. She's a real hoover.
I didn't say it was impossible but I did say it was difficult. You can't just prove that it existed but that it was in common use.
Here is the trademark description: computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; namely, graphical operating environment programs for microcomputers.
Smalltalk is a programming language so I am not sure how that applies at all and one could argue over mainframe. If anything Lindows could say they don't sell manuals but I am sure that there is a later trademark that accounts for just the OS. This is all just for the word Windows by the way - not Microsoft Windows. They have 11 trademarks on the word Windows.
The company's attempt to restrain all comercial[sic] use of the word is wrong headed.
They are no restricting all commercial use. Only use in regards to adult pictures. This is what trademarks are. Plain and simple. End of argument. I can't say it enough times.
This is, after all, what Playboy wants, with the stipulation that Playboy Enterprises is the only entity authorized by the US government to use the word "playmate" to describe a person who might not be fully clothed.
..in the course of commerce. That is what a trademark is. It is restricting use of a word in commerce for a specific purpose - in this case selling adult magazines. They also trademarks on lots of other uses.
I wonder when people are going to realize that trademarks only matter when we are talking about businesses. Nothing stops you from using the word in your daily conversation.
Playboy has dozens of trademarks on just the words Playboy and Playmate without any image or typeface. Your barker using the word has no bearing on Trademarks at all. He can say that your ladies are better than anything that is in a Playboy magazine and be just fine. You can even publish an ad saying "This is the place for playboys" because you are talking about a person not a magazine with pictures of naked woman.
Trademarks don't lose their value just because they are common. Kleenex and Hoover still have very active trademarks (and who the hell calls a vacuum a hoover?). Go ahead and try to sell Kleenex tissues and see how quickly you are slapped down. I have a box of Scotties on my desk that makes no mention of the word Kleenex.
If you use the word playmate in regards to a website "featuring adult entertainment and images of female models" you are infringing on their trademark. They also have trademarks on everything from watches to slippers and perfume. In total they have 16 active trademarks on the word playmate.
Windows is (and was) a general term within GUI applications long before Bill registered Windows(tm)
This is actually up to debate. I wish I had my post from a while back where I laid it out nicely but Windows was registered in 1983 when personal computers were still in infancy. You would have to provide concrete evidence that the term was common before then which is not easy. There is also the little know clause called Proof of distinctiveness
"...the mark is said to have become distinctive of applicant's goods by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce thereof by applicant for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made."
Bad trademark or not since it has been in use and accepted as Microsoft's trademark for 5 years it is valid now.
You should be glad. As I pointed out above this is not a legal practice. He may get away with it because the IRS doesn't review things nearly as closely as people think. There are some flags that set them off and a few thousand in charitable contributions is not one. They do, however, do random audits at times.
I forgot to add that by invoicing them and not receiving payment you effectively wrote them off as bad debt which is also not allowed for services. Overall I would be very careful about this year's return. I also apologize for the AC post before. Hit the wrong damn checkbox.
I can agree with you on most of that. To tell you the truth I just hated overpaid executives. My company is cutting raises (which is better than cutting jobs, of course) which will save the company a several million but they are still paying out close to a 50 million in bonuses. Wouldn't it be nice of the executives to instead pass on some of their bonuses instead of cutting raises? A couple of thousand means a lot more to somebody making $30K than a $100,000 bonus means to somebody making $600,000 even though percentages are not the same.
They already had a trademark on GTA so the democrats would have to have been using them all along. Try using TESS to search Trademarks. You might also want to check out the difference between a Trademark, Patent, and copyright here.
Spoken like an executive. Good CEO's can make a company but there are maybe only a couple dozen in the whole country. I am talking about the other ones. The VP, SVP, EVP, etc. that can be easily replaced by any of the dozens below him. I've seen it a million times. I spent several years as an auditor for a then big 6 firm and I met more CFO's and controllers than you could ever imagine. I can count on my hand the ones that deserved to be where they were and even they didn't deserve the fat bonuses they got.
I am totally lost on your last comment. I am saying that outsourcing is not a good thing for anybody. I thought it was you saying the opposite.
First of all, programming jobs are by far the minority in jobs being shipped overseas. We are talking about call center and blue collar workers who were lucky if they made $20-30K a year here. Second, when I think bloated I think about the executives who are sending these jobs overseas and pocketing million dollar bonuses for doing it. A $2 million bonus could buy you 30 blue collars even with benefits and taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry. I was an auditor not a tax accountant. I use Tax software like everybody else. But most of my family asks the same of me.
When I look in the mirror I see a reflection. When I see a drawing of myself I see an indication. Get the difference?
I never said it wasn't an indicator but it in no way guarantees decreased revenue in the future. A decrease in contracts doesn't even necessarily say anything about Microsoft. There is a general wariness in the market right now and nobody is interested in locking themselves into long term contracts at this point.
There are way too many factors for a serious analyst to take that as any serious indicator. You'd be a fool to dump now (especially since it is climbing as we speak).
Actually Office is not standard on most PC's today. The success of Office is entirely due to its popularity in the corporate world. Go out to Dell and price a new PC. You'll notice that WordPerfect is the default and Works is available at around the same price. Office is an expensive upgrade.
I would also argue that Windows sales are helped by the fact that most people don't even realize there is an alternative.
Revenue is not the same thing as profit. Revenue is your gross income. Profit is your net after expenses. If you look at their financial statements and the MD&A you will notice that the decrease in profit is due to "$1.31 billion in stock based compensation expense associated with the employee stock option transfer."
There is no spin here except for your post. If you eliminate the effect of the stock options their expenses as a % of revenue actually decreases.
According to their Annual Reports MD&A they make a profit in Client (Desktop OS), Server, and Information Worker (Office, Visio, etc.). They lost money on Business Solutions (Great Plains Acct Software, etc.), MSN, Mobile and Embedded, Home Entertainment (XBox, etc.), and Other (which had something to do with the sale of Expedia).
Interestingly enough the server sales (which is where is and can do the most damager) is not that big a part of their income. Windows (for the desktop) and Office and really their moneymakers (and probably will be for quite some time.
Actually you have it backwards. What you are referring to is accounts receivable. Unearned revenue is revenue received for services/products not yet earned. See my full definition below.
For those of you who are not accountants:
Unearned revenue is actually not a P&L item. It is a liability on a companies Balance Sheet. If I prepay for a service the company has to recognize that revenue over the life of the service. So if I pay for a years worth of service from Microsoft for $12,000 they can recognize $1000 each month as revenue and reduce the liability by $1000 until the 12 months are up and the $12,000 has entirely hit the P&L.
The decrease in unearned revenue means that people aren't locking themselves into Microsoft but it doesn't reflect at all on what Microsofts future revenue will be. If anything companies that do end up sticking with Microsoft may pay more in the long run by not taking advantage of prepayment discounts.
And yes - I am CPA.
If you look on the trademark it says first used in business in 1983.
You know people say this all the time but I have never seen anything official about it. According the USPTO all you have to do is "use the mark on or in connection with the goods and/or services in the registration and files all necessary documentation in the USPTO at the appropriate times." I even googled for it but only found it is posts like this one. Do you have anything that supports that assertion? Please note that I am not saying that it isn't the case but I am wondering if it isn't just a misconception that has been passed around so long that it has become gospel.
Well if you can go back in time a couple hundred years before the first trademark laws in France and the UK and change them then that is fine. Otherwise common words make up the majority of trademarks and you would have to grandfather them in. You can't expect companies doing business under a common word to change their name now. You could say change the law on a go forward basis but the damage is done. It really isn't all that bad as long as companies don't try to stretch it too far which is what the courts are for.
Bonus points for whoever knows the first trademark in the UK. Here's a hint - I could go for one right now.
I have actually never used any of them but at least a Kleenex I have heard used. I guess it is just a regional thing. The only time I have ever heard hoover used outside of referring to the the Company, President, or Dam is when referring to a girl who gives good head. She's a real hoover.
I didn't say it was impossible but I did say it was difficult. You can't just prove that it existed but that it was in common use.
Here is the trademark description: computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; namely, graphical operating environment programs for microcomputers.
Smalltalk is a programming language so I am not sure how that applies at all and one could argue over mainframe. If anything Lindows could say they don't sell manuals but I am sure that there is a later trademark that accounts for just the OS. This is all just for the word Windows by the way - not Microsoft Windows. They have 11 trademarks on the word Windows.
The company's attempt to restrain all comercial[sic] use of the word is wrong headed.
They are no restricting all commercial use. Only use in regards to adult pictures. This is what trademarks are. Plain and simple. End of argument. I can't say it enough times.
This is, after all, what Playboy wants, with the stipulation that Playboy Enterprises is the only entity authorized by the US government to use the word "playmate" to describe a person who might not be fully clothed.
..in the course of commerce. That is what a trademark is. It is restricting use of a word in commerce for a specific purpose - in this case selling adult magazines. They also trademarks on lots of other uses.
I wonder when people are going to realize that trademarks only matter when we are talking about businesses. Nothing stops you from using the word in your daily conversation.
Playboy has dozens of trademarks on just the words Playboy and Playmate without any image or typeface. Your barker using the word has no bearing on Trademarks at all. He can say that your ladies are better than anything that is in a Playboy magazine and be just fine. You can even publish an ad saying "This is the place for playboys" because you are talking about a person not a magazine with pictures of naked woman.
Trademarks don't lose their value just because they are common. Kleenex and Hoover still have very active trademarks (and who the hell calls a vacuum a hoover?). Go ahead and try to sell Kleenex tissues and see how quickly you are slapped down. I have a box of Scotties on my desk that makes no mention of the word Kleenex.
If you use the word playmate in regards to a website "featuring adult entertainment and images of female models" you are infringing on their trademark. They also have trademarks on everything from watches to slippers and perfume. In total they have 16 active trademarks on the word playmate.
Windows is (and was) a general term within GUI applications long before Bill registered Windows(tm)
This is actually up to debate. I wish I had my post from a while back where I laid it out nicely but Windows was registered in 1983 when personal computers were still in infancy. You would have to provide concrete evidence that the term was common before then which is not easy. There is also the little know clause called Proof of distinctiveness
"...the mark is said to have become distinctive of applicant's goods by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce thereof by applicant for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made."
Bad trademark or not since it has been in use and accepted as Microsoft's trademark for 5 years it is valid now.
You should be glad. As I pointed out above this is not a legal practice. He may get away with it because the IRS doesn't review things nearly as closely as people think. There are some flags that set them off and a few thousand in charitable contributions is not one. They do, however, do random audits at times.
I forgot to add that by invoicing them and not receiving payment you effectively wrote them off as bad debt which is also not allowed for services. Overall I would be very careful about this year's return. I also apologize for the AC post before. Hit the wrong damn checkbox.
I can agree with you on most of that. To tell you the truth I just hated overpaid executives. My company is cutting raises (which is better than cutting jobs, of course) which will save the company a several million but they are still paying out close to a 50 million in bonuses. Wouldn't it be nice of the executives to instead pass on some of their bonuses instead of cutting raises? A couple of thousand means a lot more to somebody making $30K than a $100,000 bonus means to somebody making $600,000 even though percentages are not the same.
They already had a trademark on GTA so the democrats would have to have been using them all along. Try using TESS to search Trademarks. You might also want to check out the difference between a Trademark, Patent, and copyright here.
Spoken like an executive. Good CEO's can make a company but there are maybe only a couple dozen in the whole country. I am talking about the other ones. The VP, SVP, EVP, etc. that can be easily replaced by any of the dozens below him. I've seen it a million times. I spent several years as an auditor for a then big 6 firm and I met more CFO's and controllers than you could ever imagine. I can count on my hand the ones that deserved to be where they were and even they didn't deserve the fat bonuses they got.
I am totally lost on your last comment. I am saying that outsourcing is not a good thing for anybody. I thought it was you saying the opposite.
First of all, programming jobs are by far the minority in jobs being shipped overseas. We are talking about call center and blue collar workers who were lucky if they made $20-30K a year here. Second, when I think bloated I think about the executives who are sending these jobs overseas and pocketing million dollar bonuses for doing it. A $2 million bonus could buy you 30 blue collars even with benefits and taxes.