backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by dude.. on May 12 at 11:57 PM
Microsoft said it wants to build its own software and then sell it for much cheaper than the competition

Microsoft's success in the IT industry is no secret. The company tends to make a big success out of most businesses it decides to try out. When the software giant does fall behind the competition however, it turns to a vast sum of money and either acquires or simply demolishes the competition out of noticeable existence.

In a meeting held by Microsoft's business division president Jeff Raikes this week, Microsoft announced that it will now take a different approach when it comes to business software: build, not buy. What Microsoft will bank on is creating new software based on current and in-house developed portfolio of software that includes SQL Server and Office.

For the past several years, Microsoft purchased many small companies, absorbing their assets and intellectual property. The fruits of its acquisitions usually end well, and the company has demonstrated its tactics since the very early days of DOS -- which was written by an individual software developer and then bought by Microsoft during its startup years.

"I've never been opposed to the idea of looking at players in the industry. We've looked, to be quite honest. We just thought organic development would get us to the real solution faster," said Raikes.

Microsoft is in the process of developing software to help business track progress and make forecasts. A new product called PerformancePoint Server 2007 is being designed to help executives and managers on issues such as budgeting, forecasting and performance monitoring. A new version of SQL Server will also launch later this year.

Upon careful review, Microsoft decided that it would cost less to develop certain applications in-house. "The cost of our solutions will be a quarter of the traditional solutions. The economics are going to get transformed," said Raikes. Microsoft plans to compete with the likes of SAP, Business Objects, Cognos and Oracle, indicating that it plans to compete via a price point advantage. Microsoft said its solutions will be heavily discounted compared to current solutions offered by its competitors.

That being said, Forbes reported just last week that Microsoft may acquire Yahoo! in a $50 billion deal.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
insert sarcasim
By Drexial on 5/10/2007 6:30:03 AM , Rating: 4
so wait..... your telling me that a software companies plan is to write software.... what an AMAZING concept, its imagination and motivation like that that put them at the top.... oh wait, no they just bought everyone out.




RE: insert sarcasim
By xphile on 5/10/2007 7:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
Balmer internal memo to management...

Buying out the competition wasnt a total success, and the bastards at Google wont sell.

We will write our own software now instead; yes it's an unusual and unique approach and not truly understood by many of you, but trust me it has worked in the past and in times of need doing the unusual can often catch the competition off guard so we'll try it.

And our advertising will tell them it's the best you could ever use, and when I say advertising you can be sure thats like 10 adverts an hour until they just cant take it anymore and will just buy it to make us go away.

And if that doesnt work we will give it away free and tell them how generous we are and how the third world needs this software too and so we decided to just make peace with the world and show how caring we really are. Just dont mention market share - thats red rag shit to those European pricks.

And the accountants say we can be generous, and kind, and caring for at least 3086 more years before we go bankrupt and as a final fallback plan that's pretty sure to f$ck over all the competition if nothing else does.

Because all of us at Microsoft really care deeply about market sh... our consumers you know.


RE: insert sarcasim
By sxr7171 on 5/10/2007 11:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
Downrate him all you want, but it was funny and well written.


RE: insert sarcasim
By johnadams on 5/11/2007 12:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
agreed


RE: insert sarcasim
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2007 8:58:08 AM , Rating: 5
Hate them all you want. But theres a 90% chance you typed that message on a Windows PC.

I personally have no problem with Microsoft. They develop a quality product. The only issue is they sometimes can overcharge for it. I'm hoping they'll eventually get it and go to a different way of selling Windows. Smaller initial cost, then just pay for support and updates. $25, 50, 75, 100 entry fee (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate). Then $10-20 a year for support and access to updates after the first year. Over the life span of the OS, you'll pay about the same.


RE: insert sarcasim
By Mitch101 on 5/10/2007 9:52:17 AM , Rating: 4
I agree with you FITCamaro.

Microsoft does make quality products. Its not thier fault someone tries to save $3.00 by buying a SOMY not a typo DVD drive instead of a SONY dvd burner. Installs 10 tons of crap programs without ever reading the EULA and notices it installs a startup program that sucks up resources and has bugs, Never ran a anti-spyware program because they thought anti-virus software would detect it. Has no Firewall whatsoever hard or soft, Never defrags thier hard drives or check them for errors or wont spend $40.00 on an external hard drive to back up their important files so when thier IBM deskstar hard drive starts failing with bad sectors it must be Microsoft's fault huh? Oh its so bloated and slow Microsoft's fault not thier own stupidity or lack of taking a course or reading the freakin manual. Hey let me increase my swapfile instead of adding ram because they are the same. Hey that power supply came with my case and I only paid $18.00 for it including shipping and this ram I got for only a nickle at a garage sale. BTW there are about 40 newer versions of this video driver you never bothered to upgrade to. Same goes for your motherboard drivers, bios, dvd firmware, software, network card, etc etc etc but why upgrade them when you can blame Windows? Lets not forget the generic items that dont come with any drivers or upgrades that utilize generic windows drivers to make that item work.

When you buy generic crap you might save a few bucks but in the end you buy yourself a system problem. Even the quality name brand companies have driver issues and revisions but blaming Windows is easier I guess.

And for the love of god please dont turn this into a site the TheInq where they still make jokes about blue screens which which I have seen about 3 since Windows 2000 was released and I cant recall a single one with Windows XP except when I overclocked just a bit too far. But that over overclock Im sure was Microsoft windows fault not my overclock. Sure that overclock didnt corrupt and inportant system files but Im sure thats Microsoft's fault.


RE: insert sarcasim
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2007 12:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. 90% of issues with Windows are hardware or user error.

Cheap, low quality parts make for a cheap, unstable system. Yes, there is a difference between an Emachine and building it yourself. If everyone else is selling it for $1000 and you claim to have the same thing for $500 theres a reason why.

And loading tons of crap on your system and not updating things can cause crashes too. Other than the blue screens I've seen at previous jobs where they were the result of bugs in the drivers we were testing, I've seen 4 blue screens since I started using XP. All 4 in one way or another were due to a buggy Nvidia driver. Oh sorry, 5. It was from trying to run Daemon tools on an dual 1.1GHz P3 machine where I'm guessing the motherboard wasn't compatible.

And your RAM, hard drive, motherboard, etc going bad is not Microsoft's fault. But people don't think that. They see that their computer doesn't work anymore, so of course it has to be Microsoft's fault. The only problems people don't blame on Microsoft is power surges and when they spill something on their laptop.


RE: insert sarcasim
By Oregonian2 on 5/10/2007 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
"My overclocked PC keeps crashing, must be that crappy Microsoft OS software!".

:-)


RE: insert sarcasim
By stmok on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: insert sarcasim
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 3:40:37 PM , Rating: 3
Basically your debating strategy is to bring up so many points so that anyone with a reasonable amount of time to spend cannot possibly address your post. Nice strategy.


RE: insert sarcasim
By littlejim68 on 5/10/2007 4:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
hahahahah Good point!


RE: insert sarcasim
By honeg on 5/10/2007 10:28:50 PM , Rating: 1
Let me summarize for you.

Microsoft:
- doesn't get security, so Windows is vulnerable
- don't retrofit new tech into older OSes
- release some truly crappy stuff, and change their UIs
- release stuff that doesn't do what it says on the box
- spend a lot on marketing

Hardly a huge number of points. And hardly unique to Microsoft. Personally, I don't use their products because (with the exception of games and DRM'ed media) there are better solutions out there, for less money. Their hardware (keyboards and mice), oddly enough, is some of the best out there, and I have no qualms spending money on it.


RE: insert sarcasim
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2007 11:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Staples has their normally $85 wireless keyboard and mouse on sale for $35 and then another $10 mail in rebate on top of that. Picked one up for work. Even comes with 4 Energizer batteries not some no name offbrand that would only last a day.


RE: insert sarcasim
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2007 5:49:31 PM , Rating: 4
So you know exactly how DX10 works and you can say with absolute certainty that it can be compatible with Windows XP? Shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.

Quit your bitching and realize that for progress to be made, sometimes things have to be left behind. Vista is a completely different operating system than XP regardless of how similar the two look visually .

And while he is a legend in the gaming industry, John Carmack is also one who doesn't agree with the move to multi-core processors. Nor is an operating system built solely to satisfy the needs of gamers. Microsoft makes the bulk of its money from corporate sales. Those of us who actually fully utilize our PCs are in the minority so they're not going to design the OS with just us in mind.

Yes it be awesome if they released Windows Vista: Gamer Edition that had a mode where it ran in a stripped down setting with only the things needed to play games running. But they haven't. Nor are there any DX10 games even on the market, so worrying about DX10 right now is pretty stupid.

Yes Clippy was annoying. Yes Office 2007 requires some getting used to (which takes all of an hour or two). Overall a lot of people like Office 2007 though (can't say the same for Clippy. I'd like to put a bullet its brain too).

XP is still is a good OS. Vista improves upon it in a lot of ways. Yes theres some new annoying features but there always will be. If you want to bitch, go to Mac or Linux. One you have a selection of 5-6 games to play and the other none.


RE: insert sarcasim
By Zelvek on 5/10/2007 11:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Riiight...Do you not blame MS for the recent ANI vulnerability of which NONE of Vista's security mechanisms were able to defend against? Or do you just assume the user is at fault there as well?


Linix and mac both have security holes too you know. Because there are more people using windows it is more vulnerable, viruses spread easier because you are more likely to come in contact with them from other windows machines. Security holes are found faster because there is more traffic to monitor.

quote:
Its their insistance that people need to upgrade when their existing solution is perfectly fine. The best example is DirectX 10. They could have easily implemented this such that WinXP is supported. But no, because they NEED YOU to buy Vista!


Hey they have to make money some way. Mac charges for new versions of their OSX which are little more than service packs so stop complaining.

quote:
MS may come up and use good ideas, but they really suck at implementation. How they do it is downright annoying and fustrating. Vista's UAC is the clear example. A 20yr+ old concept used by Unix/Linux/Apple's OSX, etc. If you, as the user of Vista, is annoyed or have disabled the feature, then MS have clearly missed the boat with this function.


Mac has not had an equivalently to UAC for 20+ years hell if you go back that far MS was building OS's for the mac. Linux is only 16 years old. Unix is not an OS that an average or even some above average users can operate.

quote:
And then there's really annoying user things like "Clippy". (which was later dropped)...BTW, many people need to be re-trained because of the changes in Office 2007. (Many people don't realise that the Office button actually does something! Hell, I thought it was a non-functioning logo when I first looked at Office 2007!)


Yea clippy was a pain but you could tell him to fuck off if you wanted too. People had to be retrained it use office bull shit if my mum could figure it out anyone can.

quote:
The real problem with Windows, is not Windows itself. Its the design compromises MS had to make. Anyone in the security field (researcher, hacker, cracker, etc), knows if MS scrapped the existing Windows code completely, restarted from scratch, took good design ideas from others, and implemented them well, there would be A LOT LESS issues. (Both security and other common issues like the need to regularly defrag, issues with the registry, etc would be solved).


That would be a shit load of work and would cost lots not to mention that there would be no compatibility unless they made an emulator which would not run everything and mean more work yet. In a business environment having compatibility means a lot you don't want your software investment of thousands of dollars to go to waste.

quote:
I have never had a problem with Windows because of hardware or user related issues. I've always had a problem with them providing new features that aren't at least 90% effective or usable as advertised. I've always had an issue with needing of third-party software required to maintain a Windows box. (because of the deficiencies with Windows itself).


Well I have not had any problems with windows since xp and I can tell you from working as a computer tech that that figure of 90% is probably low.

quote:
I also find MS is always using their marketing machine to compensate for the lacking of things in their soutions.


So whats the difference between MS advertising and mac... Oh I know MS dose not try to say that all you guys using the other OS are fat balding dorks (Ironic most the guys I know who run mac are)


RE: insert sarcasim
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2007 8:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Vista was a 90% or something complete code rewrite from XP.


RE: insert sarcasim
By Zelvek on 5/12/2007 8:53:34 PM , Rating: 1
how does this have anything to do with my comments? And vista is actually based off of windows 2003 server.


RE: insert sarcasim
By dude on 5/12/2007 11:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 2003 was based off XP.


RE: insert sarcasim
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 9:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
First, what's wrong with acquisitions? They are a great way for a company to get into a new area. They allow you to get the product/service, the existing customers, and often times the talent that created the thing in the first place. Acquiring an existing product/company is also far less risk than developing your own, and the original owners usually get paid a big premium for this.

But acquisitions are only a part of Microsoft's success - the acquisition is only the beginning. Microsoft has done well with taking these types of products to the next level through product management and lots of R&D investment in them. And finally, Microsoft is good at execution - getting things done - the original innovation is worthless if you can't execute well.


RE: insert sarcasim
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 9:46:02 AM , Rating: 3
First, what's wrong with acquisitions? They are a great way for a company to get into a new area. They allow you to get the product/service, the existing customers, and often times the talent that created the thing in the first place. Acquiring an existing product/company is also far less risk than developing your own, and the original owners usually get paid a big premium for this.

But acquisitions are only a part of Microsoft's success - the acquisition is only the beginning. Microsoft has done well with taking these types of products to the next level through product management and lots of R&D investment in them. And finally, Microsoft is good at execution - getting things done - the original innovation is worthless if you can't execute well.


RE: insert sarcasim
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 9:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure why this was double-posted - shouldn't the DT server prevent this? Obviously I couldn't have typed up the whole post again and re-submitted it in 1 second.


RE: insert sarcasim
By HVAC on 5/10/2007 2:34:54 PM , Rating: 1
U knot due dubbul clik on intarnet!
Ownlee sigle clik!


RE: insert sarcasim
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 2:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
Clicking twice should not lead to duplicate posts. This situation is easy to avoid when programming a web site.


Microsoft is out to destroy all competition
By KewlWhip on 5/10/2007 10:37:40 AM , Rating: 4
Why do so many people think that we are out to either buy or force our competition out of business? If you ask anyone at Microsoft we like competition. We don't do our best work until we have some competition. Look at IE, it sat stagnant for so long until Firefox and other browsers started taking market share and now we have IE7 with better / more features. I'm sorry to disappoint everyone but we're excited by the competition that open source and company's like Google are bringing to the table. It really brings out our best efforts to build great software.

-Chris a Microsoft employee




RE: Microsoft is out to destroy all competition
By jtesoro on 5/10/2007 11:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
While I've heard companies say that competition is something that they "like", it's a bit of a stretch to me. I think what you and other companies really mean to say is that competition is something that "motivates" you.

It's not liking competition that makes the market better. The presence of competition drives each of the players to do their best, and this is what moves the industry forward.


RE: Microsoft is out to destroy all competition
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 11:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
The distinction you draw doesn't make sense. The OP gave the example of IE7. IE7's development was inspired not because they "like" competition, but because there was "actual" competition.

Microsoft has competition in everything they do. Name one product/service Microsoft offers, and I can list a number of competitors. People sometimes have the perception that because Microsoft has a large market share and in some cases a monopoly, that this implies there is no competition. This is incorrect - there are lots of companies trying to gain market share from Microsoft all day long.


RE: Microsoft is out to destroy all competition
By KewlWhip on 5/10/2007 12:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there is competition in every product/service we offer but in several products we don't perceive it as a threat. How many years did we ignore Linux? It's always been there but we now view it as a potential threat and therefore competition. 5 years ago is a whole different story.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my original statement but it's clear that you did not understand what I was trying to convey. When I stated that we "like" competition I meant that without it we get bored and lazy. Yes IE7 development was inspired by "actual" competition but that does not change the fact that we do "like" competition. It forces us to innovate, to make our products better which is what we love to do.

No competition = bored and lazy
Competition = inspired and happy


By TomZ on 5/10/2007 12:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
I understand all that. I was mainly responding to the other poster's statement which basically was "Microsoft has no competition and just because Microsoft 'likes' competition doesn't create a competitive market." My point is that Microsoft does exist in a competitive market, and quite frankly it doesn't matter if you like competition or not - it always exists and it is a fact of life.


By jtesoro on 5/10/2007 12:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The OP gave the example of IE7. IE7's development was inspired not because they "like" competition, but because there was "actual" competition.

Isn't this exactly what I'm saying in my first paragraph?

quote:
Microsoft has competition in everything they do. Name one product/service Microsoft offers, and I can list a number of competitors. People sometimes have the perception that because Microsoft has a large market share and in some cases a monopoly, that this implies there is no competition. This is incorrect - there are lots of companies trying to gain market share from Microsoft all day long.

Agree. To repeat my second paragraph: the presence of competition moves the market forward, whether the company likes competition or not.

quote:
The distinction you draw doesn't make sense.

We're saying the same thing. This comment doesn't make sense.


By fic2 on 5/10/2007 12:37:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why do so many people think that we are out to either buy or force our competition out of business?


History.

More like destroy the competition through free or back room deals, then let the product stagnate until someone comes out with new innovations for the product, copy them, rinse/repeat...


RE: Microsoft is out to destroy all competition
By stmok on 5/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: Microsoft is out to destroy all competition
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 3:41:32 PM , Rating: 3
Do you have a patent on this type of "machine gun" debate strategy? :o)


By SavagePotato on 5/10/2007 5:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
The internet is a series of tubes you see, you can't just back up the truck and take a dump or your internets can't get through cause the tubes are clogged.

This guy just backed up the truck bigtime haha. that wall of text makes kitty scared.

http://www.williamandnadia.com/media/photos/scared...


so...
By copiedright on 5/10/2007 6:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
So Microsoft has found a more efficient way of removing the competition.

Sure its good for the user in the short term, but in the long term, having no competition hurts everyone!




RE: so...
By dome1234 on 5/10/2007 6:30:50 AM , Rating: 2
it may not be as clearcut. If throwing down lots of cash means instant success, microsoft wouldn't be rumoured to be buying yahoo. Correct me if I'm wrong, don't they spend fair amount of gold on msn?

having said that, having lots of cash certainly helps immensely.


RE: so...
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 9:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
Please RTFA. The article says that Microsoft plans to develop their own business intelligence software rather than to acquire an existing vendor. That would be more competition, not less.


RE: so...
By jtesoro on 5/10/2007 11:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
You're against Microsoft for developing stuff in-house to beat competition. I'm betting you're also against Microsoft beating competition by buying them out.

So should they just develop stuff in house and GIVE it to the competition? Oh wait, they could buy out a company and donate it to the competition! Maybe Microsoft should voluntarily lose the market and be absorbed by another company. Wow!

Gosh reading comments of these automatic bashers is getting tiresome.


SQL Server = Sybase (circa 1994)
By Gene Frenkle on 5/10/2007 9:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
I remember when SQL Server 4.x was acquired from Sybase and the management tools were interchangeable. Not home-grown by any means.

I wonder where Office originated.




RE: SQL Server = Sybase (circa 1994)
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 9:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
SQL Server = Sybase + 100's of millions of Microsoft R&D. Lets not forget that latter part, since clealry Sybase would never have been able to take the product to the same level as Microsoft did.

Anyway, who cares? It was obviously smart of Microsoft to make acquisitions like this. It is an essential part of their strategy for success. True and pure innovation is not as virtuous as people make it out to be, and it is clearly not the only necessary ingredient for business success.


By GoatMonkey on 5/10/2007 9:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
That's true, there are many companies started by great software developers with a great idea who are not good enough at business to take the product to its full potential. That's where a bigger company comes in, buys them out, and the original developer can retire or work on his next great idea. It's really not so bad for either of them.


By noirsoft on 5/10/2007 1:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder where Office originated.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_word

They hired Charles Simonyi, who had created the original GUI word processor at Xerox PARC. I suppose you could say it was a bit of both "Buy" (or in this case hire) and "create"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_excel

Excel first appeared as a Mac program in 1985 and Windows in 1987 (though MS did have a spreadsheet before then) -- Excel was entirely home-grown.

I could go on for every product, but it would just be posting more links from Wikipedia.

Moral of the story: RTFW. ;)


You guys crack me up
By Domicinator on 5/10/2007 7:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to know the average age of some of the posters on this topic. Obviously, a lot of you have no idea how business works, especially for a large company like Microsoft.

First of all, a company HAS to make money. They are not in business for the fun of making software for you. They are in business to make money. If a company goes too long (usually about 2 or 3 years) without turning a profit, they will quickly die. Yes, even the mighty Microsoft is vulnerable to this. Even Microsoft has to pay their employees. Even Microsoft has to pay for overhead like power to their buildings, building fees, licensing, legal protection, insurance, etc. Yes folks, believe it or not, Microsoft is a real live business that has to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Monopoly? Why does that word always come up in the same sentence with Microsoft? Is there only one OS? No. Is there only one browser? No. Is there only one office suite? No. Is there only one gaming console? No. There are open source versions and/or commercial versions of all of these types of software/hardware that are not Microsoft products. You can't fault Microsoft for trying to stay in the industry by taking those pieces of software that work well and improving upon them or trying to buy the companies that developed them. This is yet another thing that businesses have to do to stay afloat. See the previous paragraph. If a company does not grow, it dies.

And finally, you must realize that at some point you are going to have to let go of Windows XP. Don't act like it's the best OS there ever was just because Vista came out. When XP came out people were complaining about all the same stuff and wished we could just stay with 98/2000. How quickly you all forget. XP is 6 years old. It was time for something new. Get over it. There are so many people out there that have it in their heads that Vista sucks yet haven't even tried using it yet. For me, Vista has been a terrific OS so far, and I use it for gaming as well as LOTS of other applications. As OS's go, it's a breath of fresh air.

P.S. If you're waiting for that project that is claiming to convert DX10 over to XP, don't hold your breath. I guarantee it will not provide you with the same experience that you will get on Vista. XP is simply not designed to do what is necessary to fully take advantage of DX10.

P.P.S. No, I don't work for Microsoft.




RE: You guys crack me up
By mindless1 on 5/11/2007 9:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's a bit funny that you have such problems with other people doing what they don't have a problem doing. Maybe some introspection is due?

Remember, it's up to the owner what to do with their computer and they can have any feeling they want without a need to defend it.

Finally, it would be arbitrary to think someone must give up XP to move to Vista. If they resist because they don't like Vista, they might as well wait for successive OS, or look at another ('nix).


So microsoft would patent all this new software.
By rdeegvainl on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: So microsoft would patent all this new software.
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 9:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
You're pretty far off-base with your comments. This article is about how Microsoft plans to develop their own "business intelligence" software rather than to acquire an existing player in the market. So clearly there will be tons of prior art in the field, so a strategy of developing lots of software patents to stop competition is not a realistic possibility.


By rdeegvainl on 5/10/2007 10:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
I guess i didn't make myself clear enough in the first post. it isn't about the current competition, it's about taking a piece of the market share and trying to keep any NEW competition, if they use a piece of code in one of the programs, it would still be patented and can prevent someone form using it in many other applications, or paying to use it in those applications. I think of it more as a way to slow down any new markets popping up until they can penetrate early. Maybe they are trying to think 2 steps ahead. slow down inovation so we can be one of the early adopter, and have less competition, or less financially backed competition.
Anyways my comments were meant to be a little off base.


RE: So microsoft would patent all this new software.
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 10:47:06 AM , Rating: 1
Writing code doesn't create patents. You have to invent something new/unique in the code and then apply for a software patent. I don't see anywhere in this article where Microsoft has stated or even implied that it plans to apply for lots of software patents related to this activity to stifle competition. And I also don't see any evidence of Microsoft having any track record of this type of strategy in the past.


By rdeegvainl on 5/10/2007 11:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I also don't see any evidence of Microsoft having any track record of this type of strategy in the past.

Because microsoft strategy in the past was to buy up the competition.
quote:
You have to invent something new/unique in the code and then apply for a software patent

When microsoft writes new code, that will make something new!
quote:
I don't see anywhere in this article where Microsoft has stated or even implied that it plans to apply for lots of software patents related to this activity to stifle competition.

wow, so they have to say they are going to apply for patents, before they write the software, for you to think that they will. hmmm i have read alot of your post and for you to think that shallowly, is quite surprising.
The idea when getting into any market is to take as large a share as possible, so I don't believe for a second that microsoft is not gonna try to make it as hard as possible for someone to become competition.


RE: So microsoft would patent all this new software.
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 11:46:31 AM , Rating: 1
I guess you don't understand software patents. Use google.


By rdeegvainl on 5/10/2007 1:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you don't understand thinking ahead, use google.


RE: So microsoft would patent all this new software.
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 2:46:16 PM , Rating: 1
You're not thinking ahead. Your being overly imaginative and possibly paranoid. The possibility of Microsoft using loads of software patents to eliminate competition is far fetched, and if you multiply that small probability times the probability of that strategy actually being successful, it's probably more likely that Microsoft's competition will be destroyed by an asteriod crashing onto the competitors' headquarters.


By rdeegvainl on 5/10/2007 3:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The possibility of Microsoft using loads of software patents to eliminate competition is far fetched

So you honestly think that microsoft wouldn't use software patents and claims of IP theft to stop competition wherever they could?


RE: So microsoft would patent all this new software.
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 3:17:33 PM , Rating: 1
We don't know what Microsoft "would" do in some hypothetical situation, but there is little or no evidence to support a view that Microsoft have gained significant market share in any area by using software patents to eliminate competition.


By rdeegvainl on 5/10/2007 4:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
no, they used to buy out competition, now they plan to create software. It was what the whole article was about.


RE: So microsoft would patent all this new software.
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 5:44:47 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I'm sure that will be good news that the tens of thousands of software engineers that Microsoft has on its payroll will *finally* have somthing to do, after all these years of sitting around idle. :o)


By rdeegvainl on 5/11/2007 11:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
True very true


By Oregonian2 on 5/10/2007 6:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
I generally disagree with all of your comments.

I don't recall Microsoft generally buying out the competition which many companies do, but more like buying companies to gain entry into that product or feature's marketplace. In other words, Microsoft usually wouldn't be a competitor themselves before the buyout. When they bought "DOS" it wasn't from a competitor, they weren't in the OS market prior to that. They've usually bought companies that have stuff they don't have and it adds to their product base -- if that other company was a direct competitor they'd gain little for their money (not always true, but often enough). Sometimes it's also buying out a company to replace a feature that they're OEM'ing ("renting") in their current product.

Microsoft has a zillion software engineers. The few I've known (before they went to Microsoft) were very very smart people. They've written a LOT of good software despite your sarcasm.

They probably will apply for as many software patents they can, especially in this field where there already are a lot of large competitors. Microsoft will undoubtedly be sued by one or more of them (they have a LOT of stuff already) and they'll need something to "trade" with.

As far as Microsoft trying to keep others from competing in this field, it's way too late for that. There already are a large number of established vendors in that market space. Some very big.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki