Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Cloud The Almighty Buck Windows News

CEO of TuCloud Dares Microsoft To Sue His New Company 109

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the conversation-via-lawyer dept.
Fluffeh writes "Word from Ars Technica is that OnLive, a service provider that seems to totally flout Microsoft licensing and offers iPad users a Microsoft Desktop for free (or a beefier one for $5) isn't being sued by Microsoft, as this blog quotes: 'We are actively engaged with OnLive with the hope of bringing them into a properly licensed scenario.' The people who are angry include Guise Bule, CEO of tuCloud. He accuses Microsoft of playing favorites with OnLive — whose CEO is a former Microsoft executive — while regularly auditing license compliance for companies like tuCloud that provide legitimate virtual desktop services. Bule is so mad that he says he is forming an entirely new company called DesktopsOnDemand to provide a service identical to OnLive's, complete with licensing violations, and dare Microsoft to take him to court. Bule hopes to force Microsoft into lifting restrictions on virtual desktop licensing that he says inhibit growth in the virtual desktop industry, and seem to apply to everyone except OnLive." One of the restrictions applied to licensed remote desktop providers is that each user must have his own dedicated machine (pretty onerous in the days of 16+ core servers costing a mere grand or two).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CEO of TuCloud Dares Microsoft To Sue His New Company

Comments Filter:
  • Real smart. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DWMorse (1816016) on Tuesday March 20, 2012 @05:25AM (#39411445) Homepage
    What could possibly go wrong?
    • by Pieroxy (222434)

      Yup. It's not like he'll regret his statement when he'll have 1024 lawyers on his back.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20, 2012 @05:43AM (#39411495)

        Yup. It's not like he'll regret his statement when he'll have 1024 lawyers on his back.

        640 should be enough for anyone.

        (yes, I know that's not really a Bill Gates quote, but it's still funny)

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          (yes, I know that's not really a Bill Gates quote, but it's still funny)

          There are citations in both directions on that one. You are revealed as being a sneaky Microsoft shill, as well as anonymous and cowardly.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)
          Poor Billy, he's gonna be stuck with that dumb quote that ain't even his forever. I wonder how many times a year he gets asked about that thing? Its like poor old Robert Wuhl who bitches that he did Batman and all this other stuff and to this day what do people ask him when they meet him on the street? "Hey can you still fart Volare?" that quote is Billy's Volare hell I wouldn't be surprised if his gravestone said 'I never said anything about 640k dammit!"
      • by zero.kalvin (1231372) on Tuesday March 20, 2012 @06:42AM (#39411659)
        Microsoft: Challenge accepted!
      • by Dhalka226 (559740)

        He won't. That's the beauty of his "ballsy" statement.

        He's starting a brand new business. I'm sure he's incorporating it, both because he has to incorporate it in some format and because of the legal insulation it provides. He'll pick the state that is most unfriendly to the concept of piercing the corporate veil (since courts are required to use the laws of the state the business incorporates in). He doesn't care one whit about the business or its would-be customers; he's starting it just as a slight

        • by Kalriath (849904)

          The best part is actually that as a service provider, he's required to license products under an SPLA. And Microsoft can just choose not to extend one to him. Plan foiled.

  • Sounds more like a dig for free marketing. "Hey people! Big nasty Microsoft is suing us because we're a wholesome little company! You should totally give us your business!"

    Totally not gonna backfire...
  • This is not a hard concept you don't poke the bear. Its one thing to setup a service they might like for some reasons and hope they ignore your strained interpretation of the license agreement it's another dare them to sue. Microsoft has an in house legal team, I am sure one or more of those people need a project, this could cost Microsoft next to northern and this guy everything. The only reason I can see to do this is breaking the agreement in court but I doubt that will happen

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Who are OnLive? Oh, that huge company with many many users.

    Who are tuCloud? Never heard of them until today, and after this opportunistic publicity grab I probably never will again.

    It is always easier to ask forgiveness than permission, but it's easier to find forgiveness when you have a sizeable number of users. Money talks. There's nothing special about OnLive. If any successful company with actual users did the same thing, Microsoft would see an income stream waiting for them, rather than an insect

    • DesktopsOnDemand will be a different corporate entity. In otherwords MS can sue DesktopsOnDemand into the ground and tuCloud will be unscathed. The guy is setting up another company that CAN go down in flames and just be scrapped if needed. As someone who's been harrassed by MS in the past I have to say I love this idea and I find the whole thing intensely entertaining.

      • by Kalriath (849904)

        I would suspect the courts would frown on his intentions and likely sweep aside the corporate protections. I've never seen a court back a director who deliberately set up a company in order to break the law or defraud other individuals/companies.

        • I would suspect the courts would frown on his intentions and likely sweep aside the corporate protections.

          Of course they will, which is why he's setting it up as a different corporation. In contries like America corporations are entities - he's making a new corporation specifically so it can be ragdolled (have the crap beaten out of it) and then just thrown away.

          I've never seen a court back a director who deliberately set up a company in order to break the law or defraud other individuals/companies.

          Is this your first time reading Slashdot? There's a few stories a month about situations just like that. Hell there's cases of -governments- backing and giving special protections to companies that defraud individuals/companies. Even in my country it ha

  • by Anonymous Coward

    There's a short blog posting and longer report extract on MS licensing for VDI for multi-tenant service providers over at 360.
    It clarifies the position based on discussions with the major vendors involved (Microsoft, VMware, Citrix).
    http://360is.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/microsoft-virtual-desktop-licensing.html

    Who knows what the situation will be next week/month, but it's a decent explanation on what the state of play is today.

    AG

  • ...rely on the good will of Microsoft's lawyers. That's about as smart as relying on the soundness of their testing. Legal bills will sink them no matter the right or wrong.
  • Give it 50/50 odds they get sued out of existence. They certainly won't build a big user base given a dare like that.

  • If MS actually stopped all unlicenced use of Windows then they'd soon be a minority OS, they rely on piracy to give them the bulk of the desktop market share. How many people do you know who've actually bought a copy of Windows? It's mostly OEM installations, and when it stops working most people have it replaced by an unlicensed version by a "mate with a disc".
    • by ZiakII (829432)
      If MS actually stopped all unlicenced use of Windows then they'd soon be a minority OS, they rely on piracy to give them the bulk of the desktop market share. How many people do you know who've actually bought a copy of Windows? It's mostly OEM installations,

      OEM installations are not pirated copies they are completely legal and have been paid for and officially bought. Not to mention how many companies are out there running Microsoft Windows in business with Site licenses.

      It's mostly OEM installations
      • by ZiakII (829432)
        Whoops....competent not compliment. I am not competent in using spell check. =(
        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          LOL, thanks, I was wondering what you meant. Dew knot truss yore spill chucker!

  • Who's angry that Microsoft is inhibiting it's own growth? Who cares. Funny to watch it happen, though.
  • Geek doesn't understand why personal relationships are helpful to business.

    NEVER SAW THAT ONE COMING

  • The complaints from tuCloud aren't new for those in this space of IT. Brian Madden and several other forums / experts in the field have commented on the issues with MS Licensing and OnLive going back at least a year.

    Here is the latest I have seen on the issue:
    http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/gabeknuth/archive/2012/03/09/gasp-turns-out-onlive-really-isn-t-in-compliance-with-microsoft-licensing.aspx

    The real issue isn't that tuCloud is small and complaining, but rather MS is vastly limiting the use of possible

  • I thought twice before writing this. I know 1000 Windows liking Slashdotters are going to mod this down and call me a Linux fanboi but really? This kind of courtroom arguing seems so petty when viewed from the outside when so many great OSs are free for as many users as the hardware can handle. I just don't get what there is to Windows that is worth licensing at all. Don't get me wrong, it is much more stable than it was 10 years ago but what is special about it? Nothing that I can see...
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Don't get me wrong, it is much more stable than it was 10 years ago

      [citation needed]

      but what is special about it? Nothing that I can see...

      It runs Windows software, notably games. They're notable because they are less likely to run under Wine than productivity software.

  • You could just buy a volume license. Oh, but no, that's just silly. Go yell at microsoft to sue you instead.
  • How could OnLive not be legit -- they were approved by Apple for the App Store! :-)

  • This is going to blow up big, for both MS and TuCloud, I think. Considering the obvious intent Microsoft has with pushing Windows 8 as a service instead of a product (as they're already doing with Office 365 and will be tying the next version of Exchange), they're probably going to try to lock any competition out.

    I'd not be surprised if OnLive is a project planned internally to Microsoft, and they moved it "outside" to avoid scrutiny and/or Justice Dept. probes, or something like that. The "offer" they'll g

  • How do they know OnLive don't have a private agreement with MS for licensing? Just because MS make the terms extortionate to everyone else, doesn't mean they can't have a special agreement with OnLive that effectively forces any competitors out of the market. That's what happens when you build a business that depends on a single supplier, they can enter the market themselves or favour your competitor and your utterly screwed.

  • Here is another related article to this topic: http://www.dincloud.com/blog/ONLive-Microsoft-Story-Windows-7-licensing [dincloud.com] Hope you will like it. Thanks.

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Working...