"ODF has clearly won," said Stuart McKee, referring to Microsoft's recent announcement that it would begin natively supporting ODF in Office next year and join the technical committee overseeing the next version of the format.

"We sell software for a living. The ability to implement ODF in the middle of our ship cycle was just not possible," he said. "We couldn't do that during the release of Office 2007. We're looking forward and committed to doing more than [ODF-to-OOXML] translators."

By owning the "standard" and developing it in secret, without participation from other vendors, in an Ecma rubber-stamp process, Microsoft rigs the system so they can author an ISO standard with which they are effortlessly compatible, while at the same time ensuring that their products maintain an insurmountable head start in implementing these same standards. There is no balance of interests in OOXML. It is entirely dictated by Microsoft, and voted on, in many cases, by their handpicked committees in Ecma and ISO.

...

Remember, standards bring interoperability, the ability to try out new tools and techniques, the ability to migrate, the ability to chose among alternatives, the ability even to run non-Microsoft products. If standards are meaningless and ineffective, then the incumbent' vendor lock-in will win every time. At that point, isn't it convenient for them to have a monopoly in operating systems and productivity applications? This, in my opinion, is the essence of Novell's 2004 complaint, Opera's present complaint, and the ongoing file format debate. Microsoft's monopoly power and the resulting network effects have lead to a relationship with standards where they win by winning, by drawing, or even by cheating so much that they discredit the system.

The market of CMSes has become hotter since the web 2.0 movement. Drupal and Joomla the top 2 open source CMSes are consolidating in the market. This consolidation could be beneficial to software giants Microsoft and Google; therefore Microsoft and Google could secretly finance Drupal and Joomla.

Drupal and Joomla are the top 2 open source CMSes, are consolidating in the market (whatever that means). This consolidation could be beneficial to the CIA since the CIA would love to be pulling all the strings so they could install backdoors into the software and have complete access to all the content in the CMSes; therefore the CIA could secretly finance Drupal and Joomla.

No, really. First, what does "the top 2 open source CMSes are consolidating in the market" mean? I think the author meant to say something along the lines of many people shopping for an open source CMS tend to pick Drupal or Joomla, giving them both a large chunk of the market share.

I fail to see why these two open source CMS packages is beneficial to either Microsoft or Google. Microsoft's bread and butter is Windows and Office and they won't lose this any time soon since the corporate world is quite entrenched (or as some might say, a victim of vendor lock-in). Google's primary source of income is from advertisers placing targeted ads on search results (which Google will only keep showing lots of as long as they continue to be the number one place to go when you're looking for something on the web and as long as advertisers still consider it worthwhile to advertise via Google). Drupal and Joomla could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and neither company would have any issue whatsoever. In fact, I bet most employees at both companies and almost all the stockholders wouldn't even notice.

Even if the success of these two open source CMSes were beneficial to Google or Microsoft, that doesn't mean that is the reason why Google and Microsoft could secretly finance them. No, because both Google and Microsoft are the 800 pound gorillas in the room with billions of dollars to throw around, that is how they could do the funding. Why would they do the funding? I don't know. I don't think it would help them directly.

(Though it is worth noting that Google runs their Summer of Code program so Google is not-so-secretly funding many open source projects, including Drupal and Microsoft.)

You might be surprised to learn that Microsoft licenses are nearly twice as expensive in Brazil in absolute terms. I imagine Microsoft charges about the same and Brazil's brutal tax burden makes up the rest (the taxes are built into the price). But the interesting result is the relative price of licenses in each society, captured as % of GNI per capita. As a proportion of national incomes, business licenses are nineteen times more expensive to Brazilian society and home licenses are fifteen times more expensive. While GNI per capita is not a perfect figure, it reflects the incomes people make, how much they spend to live, and how much they pay in taxes. It is a crucial number when it comes to public policy; it's not hard to understand why rational policies must dodge licensing costs when possible. If there's any hope of widespread computer access, then surely we can't expect people to spend 7.8% of their annual income on Microsoft software licenses alone. The burden on small businesses is also prohibitive. This order-of-magnitude difference is a fundamental problem that can't be solved by piecemeal license giveaways. Suppose Microsoft gave out Windows and Office wholesale to all schools. Then what happens if those kids need a computer at home or in their parents' business? License costs are simply out of whack with respect to most of society. Using Linux in public schools, rarely attended by richer kids, seems inescapable.

On Jan 31, the day before Microsoft offered $31/share for Yahoo, YHOO was at $19.18/share (market cap: $26.4 billion) and MSFT was at $32.60/share (market cap: $303.6 billion). At the close of trading today, YHOO closed at $24.37/share (market cap: $33.5 billion) and MSFT was at $29.08/share (market cap: $270.8 billion). In other words, the Microsoft offer increased the value of Yahoo! Inc. by more than $7 billion and decreased the value of Microsoft Corporation by almost $33 billion. In still other words, in attempting to take Yahoo by force, they let an amount equal to Yahoo slip through their fingers. Why isn't anyone writing about Yahoo's amazing stock gains and Microsoft's plunge?

We have seen extensive press coverage of Microsoft's pursuit of Yahoo over the last few months, including notably excellent coverage from Silicon Alley Insider and the Wall Street Journal. However, I have not seen a detailed analysis of how a full hostile takeover might play out -- the kind of analysis that you would be receiving if you were a Microsoft or Yahoo board member.

So I asked a pair of expert corporate attorneys -- Michael Sullivan and Ed Deibert at Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk and Rabkin in San Francisco -- to work up such an analysis. What follows is their take blended with my commentary.

Microsoft has lost its appeal to remove class-action status for the 'Vista Capable' lawsuit that has already resulted in some embarrassing internal e-mails being released publicly. As Computerworld reports, in its appeal to the US Ninth Circuit Court, Microsoft argued (among other things) that 'continuing the lawsuit might mean new disclosures of insider e-mails, which could "jeopardize Microsoft's goodwill" and "disrupt Microsoft's relationships with its business partners."' Given what's been released so far (158-page PDF), not to mention Microsoft's history of rather frank internal e-mails, that's probably putting it mildly. There could be some interesting reading ahead.

Local mirror of Vista Exhibits

Customers who have purchased music from Microsoft's now-defunct MSN Music store are now facing a decision they never anticipated making: commit to which computers (and OS) they want to authorize forever, or give up access to the music they paid for. Why? Because Microsoft has decided that it's done supporting the service and will be turning off the MSN Music license servers by the end of this summer.

What would happen if Apple went belly up? How many people would be stranded and unable to reauthorize their music libraries when they changed computers? This is why you never purchase (and by purchase, I mean lease) DRM'ed media.

Yesterday, before publicly announcing it, developers from Microsoft called me and others to let us know that IE8's version targeting will now work the same way other browsers work, i.e. advanced standards support will be on by default. Some people will say Microsoft caved; others, that they listened to public opinion; some may even buy the company's own explanation, which is that, given a company-wide reorientation away from proprietary winner-take-all competitiveness and toward interoperability, "web standards by default" takes precedence over "supporting all those badly made websites that were created specifically to work in IE."

In a blow to Microsoft Corp., a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit late Friday alleging that Microsoft unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating system, called "Vista Home Basic."

The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed.