Submitted by Microsoft has sold more certificates for Novell Linux software and support in the three months since the deal was signed than it anticipated, according to a company representative. The software giant initially laid plans for up to 70000 certificates in the first year. In the first three months, it has already sold more than 35000. Microsoft lawyer Brad Smith is also looking for pacts with other companies that distribute Linux or use it in their products.
“Microsoft lawyer Brad Smith is also looking for pacts with other companies”
Does the connotations of the words “Lawyer”, and “pact” scare you too?
edit: PS. my 1’000th comment.
Edited 2007-02-12 19:17
Like I said, Customers have the last word.
Anyone who falls for this ensures that Microsoft, not customers, have the last word.
Still, Customer have the last word.
What part of “Microsoft, not Customers” is it that you don’t understand?
The part I believe, not the part you tell me.
I have my opinion, you have yours.
so
Customers have the last word.
except… pretty soon, we won’t be able to see your words !
I thought simply negativily scoring people because you don’t agree with them was wrong.
His opinion is valid and true. Customers do have the last word. Companies have the first. It’s called advertising. Humans are gullible and will believe what they read and buy what they are sold.
So customers have the last word as dictated by the first word.
Customers have the last word.
Ultimately, yes. Microsoft might market themselves above the competition, have the name recognition, and might even employ shady sales tactics(license audits); but in the end, the customer has to make the final decision.
And look likes they did made one, don’t you think?.
Edited 2007-02-12 19:29
Theoretically yes, but think about the years and years windows come preinstalled, every friend or family one might have uses windows and you know how ‘opt-in’ closed and proprietary MS OSes and file formats are and now you have to make a choice, Windows or not Windows.
People call that naive although I due very much respect your believe!
No they dont. Thats just an illusion that companies feed to customers to keep them buying their products.
Customers do not have the last word,
the last words are usually…..
“get out of my shop”
Like I said, Customers have the last word.
No, customers don’t have the last word, Microsoft doesn’t have the last word, the lawyers have the last word.
I though the judge had the last word not the lawyers.
I though the judge had the last word not the lawyers.
Nope, this is a common misunderstaning of people who believe in the fairy tale of justice.
Remember who hires the lawyers.
And since lawyers can be customers would that mean that, at least in some cases, the customer has the last word.
Semantics, you got to love them.
Hiev,
With all due respect, take the blinders off.
Customers have a voice. And that’s all.
Anyone who has worked in the industry… any industry, really… knows that the old saw that “The Customer Is Always Right”… is wrong. (Even for restaurateurs!)
Businesses, like anyone else, are out for their own self interests. What the customer does not know, or does not perceive… won’t hurt him, right?
I am generally negative on the Novell/Microsoft deal.
However, I am willing to wait and see.
But to conclude that “Customers have the last word” at this point is naive. It’s the sort of naivety that leads to laissez-faire economics.
It is certainly tempting to simplify things as far as you seem to want to do. But as Albert Einstein advised:
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Edited 2007-02-12 20:33
But to conclude that “Customers have the last word” at this point is naive. It’s the sort of naivety that leads to laissez-faire economics.
Not to put words into Hiev’s mouth, but I echoed his statements as well(I was modded down for it). However, my reasoning could differ.
The way I see it, the customers have the final word. That’s obviously, as you pointed out, a very simple conclusion ignoring everything from problem to solution. However, if my organization decided to dump all of our Windows workstations and go to 100% Linux, we could do it and Microsoft couldn’t stop us. That’s completely ignoring the pain and suffering we would endure making that change. My point wasn’t that the barriers to exit aren’t difficult due to vendor lock in, rather that it isn’t impossible.
But, I could very well be arguing a different subject and completely missing the point of the discussion!
“””Not to put words into Hiev’s mouth, but I echoed his statements as well(I was modded down for it). However, my reasoning could differ.”””
I bumped you back up. 😉
SMB’s tend to look at things in a short-termish way. Short-term thinking, combined with a feeling that “the market” will iron out all our problems in a reasonable time is easily exploited by companies with the power to take advantage of it.
BTW, if your company decided to “dump all of our Windows workstations and go to 100% Linux” it would be playing into Microsoft’s hands. It would be in for a disappointment. 100% would be absolutism, and that is rarely a beneficial thing.
It would need to keep those Windows workstations that really needed to be there for a good reason. And it may be that a few of the stations would be better replaced by Apples, depending upon what your company needed from them.
I’m in favor of going the extra mile to extricate one’s self from needless bondage to any particular platform. But if the platform really makes sense for what you are doing, then use it.
I’m in favor of going the extra mile to extricate one’s self from needless bondage to any particular platform. But if the platform really makes sense for what you are doing, then use it.
You’ll get no argument from me on that. I’m not against one platform or another. I’ll use whatever I think is best for the job, or whatever platform a specific app calls for.
Customers have the last word.
That’s all well and good, but what when they state their “last word” based on faulty information? What does it prove if customers decide they need patent protection because they were told they need patent protection? That’s obviously good for those who made the deal, but says little about whether it’s actually any good for the customers.
Lots of licenses being sold might prove that customers are gullible instead of proving that the deal is actually beneficial (to anyone other than MS and Novell, which is why they made it of course: they’re businesses).
You can mod me down, I don’t care, I won’t chage my mind to please you, That’s the true freedom.
I might say the same thing.
“Customers have the last word”
What does that mean. Are you saying that because customers have bought the certificates that they are a good thing, or even that customers “wanted” to buy them?
I’m not disagreeing with you yet, because I’m not sure what you really mean.
Sounds like someone is in denial about the illusion of freedom as well
To whoever moderated me down, I’d like to see an actual disagreement rather than an outright abuse of the mod system. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they should be moderated down.
Fixed, I modded you up.
From TFA:
“People can debate how much (the patent protection) is needed, but the reality is it’s provided,” Smith said.
So either the patent protection is needed, or the agreement is moot. This is the problem with patent covenants. Are you really allowed to make agreements that don’t establish their own efficacy? How does the legal system intend to mitigate disputes over agreements based on assumptions that have never been established (or refuted)?
Already we see MS and Novell bickering over the spirit of the agreement, and this comes as no surprise. The agreement has no implicit intent. That, in my layperson interpretation, implies that the agreement is unenforceable and therefore invalid.
Edited 2007-02-12 20:22
we own a big part of every OS pay us or we will sue ?
Goodness. Only Microsoft, it seems, have competitors as weak and as incompetent as Novell to allow them to make money even out of their competitors’ products.
This is part of a rather effective, it seems, strategy of giving the strong impression to paying customers, especially in large companies, that Linux and open source software infringes on Microsoft’s IP and that they need to be payed.
Novell have duly bent over and accepted, because make no mistake, Novell is getting nothing from this.
In fact, nothing is being polite because they’re giving away. There is no interoperability, no collaboration on virtualisation and the only reason why Novell and Microsoft have joint labs is so that Microsoft can oversee the collection of their monies. This will then gradually erode Novell’s remaining customers an squash Novell still further. Novell are bending right over.
It’s a great money making strategy, and notice that this is being directed by the legal department. Even the legal department has revenue targets! I’ve got to hand it to Microsoft really.
Did Novell sell Linux to Microsoft? It seems like it did.
Browser: Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/3.0.6540/1558; en; U; ssr)
They make offers you can’t refuse: “My, my, what a nice little Linux distro you have here! It’d be a shame if something happened to it, right? Or your children. Or your dog. Now, cough up a little money and nuttin’ bad will happen …”
rehdon
Amusing. But Novell contacted MS with the notion of the patent pact.
I’m more amused with how Ballmer characterized giving almost half a billion dollars to Novell:
“We spend $7 billion a year on R&D, our shareholders expect us to protect or license or get economic benefit from our patented innovations. So how do we somehow get the appropriate economic return for our patented innovation, and how do we do interoperability.”
So, MS investors, do you feel appropriately compensated?
if microsoft said it- it must be true
God, I hope you’re are being sarcastic…
– Gilboa