CEO of TuCloud Dares Microsoft To Sue His New Company 109
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).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"What can you do?"
Sue? A publicly traded company should not be able to play favorites when it comes to license enforcement.
Re: (Score:1)
Why not? Patent trolls play favorites on whom to sue. It's the licensor's right as owner of the IP to do as they wish with their property.
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gifts above a certain value are taxable. I'm not sure if that counts for gifts between companies. The story about Inida taxing "angel funding" is similar to this, and if one company is creating an uneven playing field by giving gifts to another company then that is not desirable in a free market. It could even come under antitrust, if they are doing this to increase Windows' market share in the mobile virtual desktop space.
Re: (Score:1)
So the solution is to force copyright holders to sue everyone, whether they want to sue or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that how it already works for trademarks? If you want to have exclusive rights, you either have to enforce it or lose it?
Unfortunately, while the gaming service is now available in Canada the desktop isn't yet. So I can't say if it's worth the trouble or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is appropriate for trademarks, but I don't think it is for copyright. This is a trade issue and so should be addressed by the FTC - it could be monopolistic practice by Microsoft, or it could be a taxable gift to OnLive.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but if market is being disrupted by a large gift of free licences to one party, then the FTC could ask the IRS to tax them on that gift.
Re: (Score:2)
A business in the US can't refuse service to someone because they are black. Should an IP owner be allowed to refuse to license their IP to a business that is minority owned?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? A publicly traded company's only duty is to make money for its shareholders... That duty is not incompatible with the goals of favoritism in other markets... If OnLive comes to dominate its market, while still being utterly dependent on MS, then MS will have huge leverage over them and be able to take the lion share of the profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop already with the incorrect summary of Ford vs. Dodge Brothers?
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's one way to look at it. The other is that Microsoft's favouritism has allowed OnLive to grow rapidly and dominate a complete market, while tuCloud has been forced into being a rinky-dink outfit with no real prospects due to Microsoft's abuse of their OS monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
The other way to look at it is that OnLive have been poking around this concept for several years, and are engaged in a private dialog with MS, while this bloke has only been public for a few months and has only talked to the wrong people (the Ars comments point out that he only talked to the RDP guys at MS, not any licensing specialists).
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A single license can be time shared between 20 or 30 users, it just has to be on its own machine.
I've done the whole MS licensing dance, as part of a budget where I was responsible for $1.5million of buying, and to be fair MS licensing is fine in 99% of cases, but it's that other 1% which you need help for. And this falls into that 1%, because neither OnLive nor this guy want to do what most other businesses want to do.
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that there would be need for a "licensing specialist" speaks volumes about the complexity of navigating the Microsoft licensing system.
I was researching Sharepoint a couple years ago. In Microsoft's FAQ for it, where I thought I'd find lots of technical Q&As, the section on licensing was longer than all other sections combined.
A software product/service that requires a lawyer more than a technical person to evaluate? Screw it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My company was trying to determine if we could use the free version of Google Maps, but the licence didn't make it clear. In the licence Google says not to contact them about the agreement, but consult a lawyer.
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:4, Informative)
No, you aren't completely informed. No generally available MS license currently allows for the virtualised provision of Windows 7 as a hosted service - only the Server 2008 licenses allow virtualised service provision. He could do what he wants with the right Windows Server license, but he can't offer a virtualised Win 7 instance in the same manner.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, there is specific licensing for virtualized desktops. try looking here http://download.microsoft.com/download/C/6/7/C673E444-6DDD-40B8-B29F-625354F2A8F7/Licensing_Windows_for_Virtual_Desktops_Whitepaper.pdf [microsoft.com]
And nothing in that white paper actually contradicts what I say - read it :)
Re: (Score:1)
2. Virtual Desktop Access (VDA)
The second licensing vehicle for virtual desktops is Virtual Desktop Access (VDA), which is a new license that will come into effect on July
1st, 2010. Customers that want to use devices such as thin clients that do not qualify for Windows client SA would need to license those
devices with a new license called Windows Virtual Desktop Access (Windows VDA) to be able to access a Windows VDI desktop.
Windows VDA is also applicable to 3rd party devices, such as contractor or employee
Re: (Score:3)
And again, that doesn't contradict what I have said - VDA requires you to issue a license to a given device, it doesnt allow you to swap licenses around between devices ad hoc. That means you cannot provision a virtualised Windows 7 license for a hosted service, in the way that this guy wants - he would have to have one Win 7 license associated with each end user device.
Again, there is no current license which allows you to sell a virtualised Win 7 hosted service.
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFM, this guy is following the rules, to the letter. That means he can only offer the service to people that already pay monster money to Microsoft (and THEN they have to pay him too)
in short his company is ALREADY a customer playing by the established rules (and being audited) trying to ask permission to add more features. While the OnLive people should be raided by the BSA marshals by now... they're getting "talked to" about licensing violations that would get a proper business' doors locked because they've already whipped up huge business in the press.
When Microsoft trots out "piracy" numbers, licensing technicalities like this are EXACTLY what they are going after nowdays. If their "war on piracy" was REAL they'd be sending the BSA with Federal Marshals to lock up OnLive. If there is some new rule that OnLive is getting, why shouldn't the people that ALREADY PAY to have the same feature get the new rules too? Microsoft is still a monopoly and giving new terms to somebody that's not properly paying shouldn't be allowed... as they are interfering with their PAYING customer's business by allowing this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While the OnLive people should be raided by the BSA marshals by now
Copyright issues are a civil matter. Since it seems like Microsoft and OnLive are working it out, there is no reason for MS or BSA to do anything.
Copyright issues haven't been just a civil matter in the US for years now. Copyright infringement is a federal crime against the state, AS WELL as being a civil matter.
Re:Okay, so I'm not completely informed here, but. (Score:5, Insightful)
while regularly auditing license compliance for companies like tuCloud that provide legitimate virtual desktop services.
If you own a volume license, yes, they can do that, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
There is no such thing as a volume license for Windows -- there's enterprise agreements, and you get a volume license key, but that key is only valid if used to replace the OEM key that comes with new hardware. (I.E., its provided to EA customers so you can push out desktop images to your hardware, but you can only do so to hardware that *came* with an OEM license. There's no concept of a "new" VLK license.)
The *only* legal option companies like this have are getting an OEM distribution license (which Microsoft doesn't do for non-hardware vendors), or use full retail copies. There's nothing MS can do to prevent OnLive from using full retail copies, but at $200ish a VM, the cost to the end user goes up. And what you can't do is use guest accounts and published applications from the cloud, because you don't have CALs for those users.
There are routes that companies can do to make it work, but not routes that somehow magically bypass the cost of buying Windows.
(And, FWIW, I am completely informed here -- I've gone through this process for similar services before.)
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm curious, what licensing scheme must services like AWS or other virtual desktop services use? If I sign up for a virtual Windows instance at an hourly price, and stop the instance after a few hours, I will pay much less than $10.
Do they buy a bunch of licenses, and then only allow that number of virtual machines to run at a time? Does Microsoft offer a virtualization license?
Re: (Score:2)
AWS runs Windows Server, which has very different licensing (including VM).
Plus, the up-front cost of reserved instances covers the license cost.
These companies are about providing either terminal services infrastructure or VDI infrastructure, both of which don't have license types for that kind of service. (Note, AWS doesn't have the terminal services role, for example.)
Re: (Score:2)
Real smart. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. It's not like he'll regret his statement when he'll have 1024 lawyers on his back.
Re:Real smart. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
(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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
These are not the memes you are looking for.
Re:Real smart. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let OnLive develop the tech and customer base, then buy it and integrate it into XBOX/Windows Live.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish 101.
Streisand Effect. (Score:2)
Totally not gonna backfire...
Some people (Score:2)
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
Re:Some people (Score:4, Informative)
According to this article over at ExtremeTech, Microsoft isn't allowed to have separate licensing deals for Windows.
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/121769-is-onlive-pirating-windows-and-what-will-it-cost-them
Re: (Score:2)
I'm prett sure that they charge OEMs a completely different price than retail customers. That doesn't mean that retail customers can demand that OEMs are shut down.
The only obligation Microsoft has to properly licensed customers is to allow them to use their products as defined by the license. What they do with/for other customers is entirely their business as long as they aren't breaking the law (e.g. abusing a monop
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why Microsoft have to use the same licensing terms for different customers.
Because they're a monopoly, and per-customer pricing is ripe for abuse. Basically, any license any MS customer gets, anybody else should be able to get on the same terms (which includes volume, so the OEM/consumer distinction will still work for them).
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you ever heard the saying "no one pays list price" in relation to Microsoft licensing? We hear it all the time (as a public health department we actually get two levels of discount on our purchasing!)
TuCloud = idiots (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
There's no practical way to put 4 GPUs in a 16-core machine and have them virtualized, one each, to 4 instances of Windows
Yes, there is, it just requires hardware that is not present in consumer-level machines (PCI-SIG IO Virtualization, example implementation [virtensys.com]). Or alternatively, you can use GPU-accelerated emulation of a virtual GPU as (e.g.) vmware is capable of... that doesn't even require 4 GPUs to be present, although you can only expect approximately 20% of the performance of the host GPU in the virtual machines (direct IO virtualization should be faster than this).
It's bad enough that each machine has to do video compression as well as running the game.
This can be trivially achieved either with an additiona
Microsoft VDI Licensing Conundrum (Score:1)
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
Sound business strategy... (Score:2)
Sounds like a great investment opp (Score:2)
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.
MS rely on piracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, thanks, I was wondering what you meant. Dew knot truss yore spill chucker!
Who's sad? (Score:1)
Summary (Score:2)
Geek doesn't understand why personal relationships are helpful to business.
NEVER SAW THAT ONE COMING
OnLive has been skirting licensing for a while (Score:1)
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 never got per-user licensing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know... (Score:2)
Apple Approved (Score:2)
How could OnLive not be legit -- they were approved by Apple for the App Store! :-)
This is going to blow up (Score:2)
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
License compliance? (Score:2)
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.
Related article (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And with a business model like that, he's sure as hell not getting any customers either.
Will probably hurt his core business too. I know I've added tuCloud to my "not fucking likely" list of service providers.