Given his technical skills, and his soon to be expanded business skilss, the real question is:
What business is he going to start?
There are really two reasons to get one of these...you either want to climb the corporate ladder or you need to study the things needed to become an entrepreneur.
I suppose "personal edification" could be a third...but naaaah...it's an MBA after all!
Having read Slashdot for awhile, and having an MBA in my back pocket, I thought it might be good to point out a few things from a strictly-business point-of-view. (This obviously doesn't invalidate anybody's personal opinion...but it may be considered as an extra data point.)
$500+ million is a huge amount of money. People who talk about how this is some "percentage" of Microsoft's quarterly revenues, income, or "war chest" just don't get it. In the end, successful corporations are such because:
Making $1 is good.
Making more is better.
Losing $1 or more is bad.
Period.
Software companies like patents because for two reasons. First, they make it harder for new entrants to threaten them. Second, it protects a position based upon functionality (in many cases) rather than pure technical merit. In each case, it protects a company against its (up-to-now) worst enemies -- other companies.
Microsoft would amaze me if they decided to try to weaken patents. Doing so would weaken the vast portfolio of patents they have created or purchased. It would also weaken their ability to use these things, like a club (see #2), against competitors in the future.
I'm not trying to shift discussion away from whether Microsoft's actions were ethical, whether patents are good, or any really relevant and interesting discussions.
However, everything else we discuss here is, at best, philosophy to a creature like Microsoft. When you are talking about $billions in revenue, and if you are trying to "get into Microsoft's head", you need to shift perspective a bit. I, personally, think patents have been abused in many ways in the last decade. However, a company like Microsoft only evaluates things like this on one basis - money. Think like that, and you'll practically be in Bill's head.
Having just finished a master's degree which involved both an MBA and an MS in Information Systems, I'd recommend these as *very* good guides for the technical who want to work better with the business (without the pain of the MBA):
"Achieving Business Value from Technology : A Practical Guide for Today's Executive" by Tony Murphy
A *really* good book that addresses the whole "how to measure ROI" when so many of the returns of an IT investment are soft.
"Corporate Information Strategy and Management: Text and Cases" by Applegate &c.
A textbook, but a good one. The cases teach some really valuable lessons. The text is, itself, a good overview of the different business-technology challenges that occur.
Having used these both at school and at work, I think they are far better at explaining (a) how to explain the hard (cash) aspects of an IT project as well as (b) helping to show the value of the soft (architectural, organizational, etc.) benefits that can't easily be transferred into financial terms.
If nothing else, they are both good for one other reason: they can both help you decide which project or option would be better...even if money is not involved. The simple ability to decide which project will be better in the long run and the ability to explain this in clear terms is an important skill that these books will also help readers develop...
Knowing Microsoft and their ability to judge the return on any investment, I just can't see this as a credible reason for their action.
More likely, they are doing it to reduce the amount of spam heading in towards Hotmail and their MSN services. The cost of managing this must be large and it may even be hurting them in the fight for the MSN-AOL user segment.
In the long term, they may also be doing it as a good deal of spam is sent with their domain as a return address or with Microsoft trademarks in the subject line. As the spammers are trying to sell something, Microsoft may need to do something in order to show that they are protecting their trademarks...but IANAL, so this is speculation...
1. This is a great niche product for anyone who needs to walk around with a PC, but doesn't have space to set down a laptop. Unfortunately, there aren't many jobs or things like this. I can think of warehouse staff, car sale lots (maybe), and a few others. I can't see any company buying these for their desk workers, especially at the price.
2. For this to start creeping into homes, there needs to be a better public education effort. Freedom from a desk (surf on the couch! in bed!), differentiation from laptops, handwriting recognition features, etc. If there isn't anything to make this a valuable, unique product for other consumers (that aren't in #1)....well....
I have read my contract and you make a good point. There is a difference between the protocol I use and the way that I use it.
At dinner on Saturday, a nontechnical friend asked me why p2p networks were so bad. She wanted to know why the networks were created and who was writing the software.
Her question, and your comment, are answered in the same way: The protocol and the use of the protocol are two different issues. Using a protocol - whether p2p, FTP, SMTP, or anything else - is a different issue than what I do with it.
So, if the ISP's were complaining about p2p when there was a more efficient technology, that would be OK. And if the ISP's were complaining about people performing illegal actions in violation of their contract, that would be fine.
But...they are saying that p2p use is what is clogging the networks. The true statement is that people's demand for digital copies of movies and music (illegal or not) is the "problem."
1. I pay my ISP for bandwidth according to the contract they offered. How I use that bandwidth is up to me. The way this article makes p2p...or any other 'bandwidth hogging' protocol...sound 'bad' because it 'costs ISP's money' is silly! I paid for the bandwidth. Don't complain when I use it.
2. A metered connection would be OK by me. But the ISP better give me more sophisticated mail blocking options than I get today.
My opinion: I'm happy to pay for what I use, but don't ask me to pay to make up for the deficiencies of your business plan or try to send me on a guilt trip because, as a consumer, I actually exercize the terms of my contract!
Slashdot Mirror
What business is he going to start?
There are really two reasons to get one of these...you either want to climb the corporate ladder or you need to study the things needed to become an entrepreneur.
I suppose "personal edification" could be a third...but naaaah...it's an MBA after all!
- Making $1 is good.
- Making more is better.
- Losing $1 or more is bad.
Period.I'm not trying to shift discussion away from whether Microsoft's actions were ethical, whether patents are good, or any really relevant and interesting discussions.
However, everything else we discuss here is, at best, philosophy to a creature like Microsoft. When you are talking about $billions in revenue, and if you are trying to "get into Microsoft's head", you need to shift perspective a bit. I, personally, think patents have been abused in many ways in the last decade. However, a company like Microsoft only evaluates things like this on one basis - money. Think like that, and you'll practically be in Bill's head.
"Achieving Business Value from Technology : A Practical Guide for Today's Executive" by Tony Murphy
A *really* good book that addresses the whole "how to measure ROI" when so many of the returns of an IT investment are soft.
"Corporate Information Strategy and Management: Text and Cases" by Applegate &c.
A textbook, but a good one. The cases teach some really valuable lessons. The text is, itself, a good overview of the different business-technology challenges that occur.
Having used these both at school and at work, I think they are far better at explaining (a) how to explain the hard (cash) aspects of an IT project as well as (b) helping to show the value of the soft (architectural, organizational, etc.) benefits that can't easily be transferred into financial terms.
If nothing else, they are both good for one other reason: they can both help you decide which project or option would be better...even if money is not involved. The simple ability to decide which project will be better in the long run and the ability to explain this in clear terms is an important skill that these books will also help readers develop...
More likely, they are doing it to reduce the amount of spam heading in towards Hotmail and their MSN services. The cost of managing this must be large and it may even be hurting them in the fight for the MSN-AOL user segment.
In the long term, they may also be doing it as a good deal of spam is sent with their domain as a return address or with Microsoft trademarks in the subject line. As the spammers are trying to sell something, Microsoft may need to do something in order to show that they are protecting their trademarks...but IANAL, so this is speculation...
2. For this to start creeping into homes, there needs to be a better public education effort. Freedom from a desk (surf on the couch! in bed!), differentiation from laptops, handwriting recognition features, etc. If there isn't anything to make this a valuable, unique product for other consumers (that aren't in #1)....well....
At dinner on Saturday, a nontechnical friend asked me why p2p networks were so bad. She wanted to know why the networks were created and who was writing the software.
Her question, and your comment, are answered in the same way: The protocol and the use of the protocol are two different issues. Using a protocol - whether p2p, FTP, SMTP, or anything else - is a different issue than what I do with it.
So, if the ISP's were complaining about p2p when there was a more efficient technology, that would be OK. And if the ISP's were complaining about people performing illegal actions in violation of their contract, that would be fine.
But...they are saying that p2p use is what is clogging the networks. The true statement is that people's demand for digital copies of movies and music (illegal or not) is the "problem."
1. I pay my ISP for bandwidth according to the contract they offered. How I use that bandwidth is up to me. The way this article makes p2p...or any other 'bandwidth hogging' protocol...sound 'bad' because it 'costs ISP's money' is silly! I paid for the bandwidth. Don't complain when I use it.
2. A metered connection would be OK by me. But the ISP better give me more sophisticated mail blocking options than I get today.
My opinion: I'm happy to pay for what I use, but don't ask me to pay to make up for the deficiencies of your business plan or try to send me on a guilt trip because, as a consumer, I actually exercize the terms of my contract!