Microsoft on The Huffington Post

Bing Name BATTLE: Design Firm Sues Microsoft Over Bing Trademark

2009-12-21T11:12:25Z

A small St. Louis company is suing Microsoft for using the name "Bing" without permission for its recently launched search engine. Bing! Information Design LLC v. Microsoft Corporation was filed on December 16, 2009 in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis and alleges "trademark infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business expectancy." The small company claims it has been using the Bing name since 2000 and has applications pending to register the trademark, while Microsoft only launched Bing in May 2009.

Gary Shapiro: A Holiday Wish List That No One Should Fulfill

2009-12-17T11:46:03Z

'Tis the season for end-of-year lists, so as we bring 2009 to a close, I offer my own, slightly tongue-in-cheek, list of all the things government could do in 2010 to bring our economy to its knees. You heard me right: this is a list of things government could adopt to prevent, not promote economic recovery. My one true wish for the holidays is that Congress not do - or in some cases, not repeat - any of these things.

So on the eve of 2010, here is my list of the "top ten" things our government could do in 2010 to reverse our nascent economic recovery. Of course, government shouldn't do any of these things - but its track record from 2009 causes me grave concern. [Note to Santa: if our government actually does any of the things on this list, please withhold presents from them in 2010.]

First, spend taxpayer money on feel-good programs, stimulus programs, rebates, cash for clunkers and anything else which has a short-term good feeling and a long-term hangover the next generation will pay for. This is a long-term investment in giving our kids a debt they cannot possibly repay. It will destroy their future and our nation - but hey - we feel good today.

Second, bail out the states so they don't have to make tough decisions about bloated governments. Give about one-third of stimulus money to states so they don't have to confront out-of-control spending and the high cost of defined benefit programs for their government employees. When this payment runs out in 2011, states will be worse off and still unable to meet the commitments they promised to their large workforces. Many states will be back in 2011 asking for an even bigger handout. And we can count these government jobs as "saved" by government scorekeepers! States will be more reliant on Uncle Sam (and this won't stop Congress from imposing new costs on states!).

Third, reward poorly run and inefficient American companies. Bailing out money-losing companies like GM, Chrysler and AIG is a great way to waste American taxpayer money and hurt better-run and more-efficient competitors. This rewards our friends the unions that brought down GM and Chrysler. The new union and government owners cannot make competitive decisions (a fact proven repeatedly in the last year by GM) but instead will be guided by political decisions. Their competitive future is dismal and we are guaranteed further American weakness as they return and insist on further bailouts and special treatment. This virtuous circle will allow politicians to claim they are protecting American jobs. Americans may still choose to buy cars from companies like Ford, VW, Toyota and BMW, which are not getting bailouts, but are making cars in the United States.

Fourth, bring down American crown-jewel companies that are the big job creators, innovators and the future of America. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Intel and Qualcomm are the envy of the world, and as the world comes after them you would expect the United States to stand up and protect them. Instead, as foreign governments challenge them with vague "monopolization" claims, the U.S. government appears to be mute. Instead, the U.S. government appears to be piling on - witness the Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Intel.

Using some vague "unfair competition" complaint, the FTC is using new theories and an unprecedented "sue first and discover later" approach to challenge one of America's best companies. Worse, the government is insisting that Intel can only create products that are open to its competitors. It also seeks to ban volume discounts - a simple fact of a competitive world. Intel is a crown jewel of America, invests heavily in R&D on US soil, employs tens of thousands of Americans in good jobs and by any account has not hurt competition. This American attack on Intel is unprecedented and harmful to the future of innovation.

Fifth, raise taxes on job creators and make secret unionization possible. We must do everything possible to discourage successful U.S. companies from feeling comfortable investing in new jobs. That means we cannot allow a stable tax environment, a cautious approach to unionization efforts, and a resistance to further burdens on employers. Card check, health-care reform and several proposals on the table to raise taxes will push new burdens and costs on U.S. employers heavily, so that it is difficult to see why a company would choose to create new jobs in the United States.

Sixth, attack one of the most successful areas of American leadership - health care - by creating a lowest common denominator system. Health care is 16 percent of GDP, so it is a juicy target for mischief. And when doing so, make sure to protect America's one million lawyers so they can continue to be employed. They will also make sure doctors waste plenty of money testing patients unnecessarily so they don't get sued.

Seventh, make sure Americans spend heavily on a complex cap-and-trade system and do not invest in nuclear energy or use their own fuel in Alaska. Keep fuel prices low with low taxes so people feel no need to buy smaller, energy-efficient cars.

Eighth, continue to commit our armed forces to unending conflicts that drain our budget and resources without making America demonstrably safer.

Ninth, keep and put up barriers to trade. Pass more "Buy American" provisions so other countries can retaliate and put up barriers to American exports. Congress should also simply sit on the three free trade agreements that would remove high tariffs on American exports. Do the union bidding and hold up pending trade agreements with Korea, Panama and Colombia as American companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars more in tariffs, hurting our exports and ability to compete. Meanwhile, these countries have focused away from the United States and are cutting deals with a gleeful Europe and Canada. The world is amazed at the unique American botoxic arrogance to bite off the nose of trade to appease the incessant priggishness of the myopic labor leaders who fund them.

Tenth, and finally, make it as difficult as possible for business to occur in the United States. Block foreign investors and businessmen from getting visas to come to the United States to view products or attend trade shows. Make sure that we have ethics rules and policies that block anyone in government from helping host international visitors who flock to trade shows like the International CES, our event in Las Vegas. German Prime Minister Angela Merkel hosts dinners for international guests at our competitive event in Germany. Our White House could, but doesn't, help our economy by welcoming the 25,000 business leaders from abroad that the International CES brings to our country each January.

Here's to a happy, healthy and prosperous 2010 - and to policymakers who know how to get us there.

Gary Shapiro is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association.

Microsoft Settles Antitrust Case Over Browsers

2009-12-16T08:28:58Z

BRUSSELS — European regulators have ended their last pending antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. as the U.S. software maker agreed to let Europeans choose from a menu of Web browsers that compete with its Internet Explorer.

The deal announced Wednesday lets Microsoft avert additional fines. It has already paid 1.7 billion euros in EU fines over the past decade.

Brad Smith: A Childhood for Every Child: Combating Child Pornography Online

2009-12-16T00:25:57Z

The Internet has dramatically changed the world for the better -- opening up incredible new ways for people and organizations to connect and communicate with others around the globe. Unfortunately, we are also well aware that there are dark corners of the Internet. The same technology that enables people to share photos and communicate with each other can also enable pedophiles to circulate graphic images of child pornography and even build online communities amongst themselves.

The distribution of online child pornography -- horrific photos of innocent children being sexually abused -- is on the rise. Since 2003 alone, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has reviewed and analyzed almost 30 million photos and videos of child pornography and it is projected that nine million child pornography photos and videos will be reviewed and analyzed in the coming year. In working with NCMEC on this problem, we know that victims are getting younger, the abuse they suffer is growing more violent and the children in the images are in many ways re-victimized as the photos of their abuse are shared online and viewed again and again by predators.

Law enforcement is working heroically around the world to fight child pornography with limited resources. Many officers who investigate these cases pay a steep emotional price for having to view the torture of innocent children day after day as they work to do something about this problem. But the volume of these images online is much too large to expect law enforcement to fight alone. We must do more.

Today, Microsoft has donated to NCMEC technology we call PhotoDNA^TM, designed to help fight the spread of graphic child pornography online. The technology works by creating a unique signature for a digital photograph, like an individual's DNA or fingerprint, which can then be compared to the digital signatures of other images to efficiently and reliably find online copies of the worst child pornography images known to NCMEC. We're also joining NCMEC to launch a campaign for "A Childhood for Every Child" to build public awareness and inspire broader action to tackle this problem. We encourage online service providers to join us in initiatives like PhotoDNA^TM to help more proactively disrupt the spread of these images online through technology. We encourage lawmakers to continue to set good policy to help in this fight, and we applaud the good work of the Congressional Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children. However, we must also ensure that policies, once established, are fully funded so that law enforcement has the resources they need for the job. And lastly, we encourage everyone -- no matter who you are -- to join us in bringing this issue out of the shadows and into the open.

Because most law abiding citizens will never see these pictures, the victims are often invisible to the general public. Please join me today and tomorrow in lending your voice to their cause by becoming part of the movement to provide A Childhood for Every Child. Use your Facebook, Twitter, Windows Live or any other online account to tell a story about what childhood should be, and signal your support by attaching the logo from our Web site to your words.

You can also support the work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by donating your time, talents or financial resources. Most importantly, help fight the problem of child sexual abuse and exploitation in your community. If you see it, if you know about it, if you suspect it, report it to thenationalcenterformissingandexploitedchildren@cybertipline.com or to 1-800-THE-LOST.

Microsoft Admits Using STOLEN Code To Build MSN Juku, China Site

2009-12-15T16:24:32Z

Microsoft has admitted that the code used to create its Chinese microblogging service, MSN Juku, was copied.

In a blog post that initially got rumors swirling, the Taiwan microblogging site Plurk, a startup,alleged that it was "ripped off" by Microsoft, whose own microblogging site Juku looked "eerily similar" to Plurk's.

Microsoft suspended MSN Juku to investigate the plagiarism allegations, and subsequently released a statement announcing that the Chinese vendor Microsoft hired to create MSN Juku had indeed used stolen code to build the site.

The statement from Microsoft reads:

REDMOND, Wash. - Dec. 15, 2009 - On Monday, December 14, questions arose over a beta application called Juku developed by a Chinese vendor for our MSN China joint venture. We immediately worked with our MSN China joint venture to investigate the situation.

The vendor has now acknowledged that a portion of the code they provided was indeed copied. This was in clear violation of the vendor's contract with the MSN China joint venture, and equally inconsistent with Microsoft's policies respecting intellectual property.

When we hire an outside company to do development work, our practice is to include strong language in our contract that clearly states the company must provide work that does not infringe the intellectual property rights of others. We are a company that respects intellectual property and it was never our intent to have a site that was not respectful of the work that others in the industry have done.

We will be suspending access to the Juku beta indefinitely.

We are obviously very disappointed, but we assume responsibility for this situation. We apologize to Plurk and we will be reaching out to them directly to explain what happened and the steps we have taken to resolve the situation.

In the wake of this incident, Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors.

In a blog post on their site, Plurk offered these details on what they believe took place:

Here's the short of what we think has happened:

* Microsoft China officially launched its own microblogging service, MSN Juku/Hompy/Mclub, some time in November, 2009.
* The service's design and UI is by and large an EXACT copy of Plurk's innovative left-right timeline scrolling navigation system. (see screen captures below)
* Some 80% of the client and product codebase appears to be stolen directly from Plurk! (see evidence below).
* Plurk was never approached nor collaborated in any capacity with MS on this service.
* As a young startup, we're stunned, shocked, and unsure what to do next and need your support and suggestions.

Follow HuffPostTech On Facebook And Twitter!

Juku: Microsoft Suspends Site After Plagiarism Claims

2009-12-15T12:45:23Z

Microsoft said it was temporarily suspending its MSN China microblogging site, Juku, as it investigates a complaint of plagiarism from a start-up, Plurk.

Plurk Accuses Microsoft China Of 'Ripping Off' Startup

2009-12-14T11:27:32Z

Microblogging startup Plurk may not have become hugely popular in these parts, where Twitter rules the lands, but it has been making strides in Asia. Recently, the fledgling company has gotten a feared competitor in the space with the launch of MSN Juku in China by the local Microsoft subsidiary, in a country where Plurk has notably been blocked since April this year.

But the software giant may well have cut a few corners here and there to get their service up and running, and has seemingly turned to outright theft of code and design elements of Plurk to launch in a hurry.

The design of MSN Juku sure has the same looks as Plurk, as you can tell from the screenshots below. But according to a blog post by the microblogging startup, there's more going on than just design inspiration:

Microsoft Users More Likely To Click Online Ads: STUDY

2009-12-11T12:44:45Z

Is there something about people who use Microsoft products that makes them more likely to click on an online ad? Some data from search advertising network Chitika suggests so. Earlier this week, we noted that people coming to Websites from Bing are about 75 percent more likely to click on an ad than those coming from Google.

Microsoft Acquires Opalis Data Center Firm

2009-12-11T11:44:58Z

The Deal reports that Microsoft will today announce it has acquired Opalis Software, "a venture-backed maker of IT process automation technology."

Google, Microsoft Sued Over Links To File-Sharing Site

2009-12-10T10:11:20Z

Mini music label Blue Destiny Records has sued both Google and Microsoft for allegedly "facilitating and enabling" the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs.

Microsoft: Don't Mention Or Use Apple Products At Our Events

2009-12-09T14:15:09Z

Probably still reeling from all publicity around these shots, Microsoft reportedly told journalists gathered for a company press event in Germany not to use or mention Apple products. Our German is a bit rusty and Google is even worse, but according to Handelsblatt and our bad translation:

Microsoft, Yahoo Finalize Search Alliance: Get Ready, Google

2009-12-04T20:18:19Z

SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have signed off on their plan to team up against Google Inc. in the lucrative Internet search market.

The step announced Friday seals the terms of a preliminary agreement announced in late July. The 10-year contract was to be signed by late October, but Microsoft and Yahoo held off to work out some fine points.

Fortune 's Stanley Bing: Journalism on the Internet: Garbage In, Garbage Out

2009-12-04T13:07:38Z

Those who haven't already seen it should immediately hit this link for what I think is the best rundown of how the Internet is polluting and distorting our information cycle. It was written by tech writer Ed Bott on ZDNet two days ago. It chronicles the way that the web takes a bogus "report" cooked up by an irresponsible organization and shoots it out all over the place. The poor company under this kind of fire can do nothing but try to put out the conflagration with their corporate squirt gun. Bott writes:

I've spent the better part of the last 48 hours looking into the colossal fiasco that is the "Black Screen of Death" story. It's a near-perfect case study in how Internet-driven tech journalism rewards sloppy reporting and how the echo chamber devalues getting the story right.

The company in question here is Microsoft, which was victimized by a story that said Windows was suffering from a dreaded Black Screen bug. There was no truth to it. But the story went viral, which in this day and age is easy. Everybody is an aggregator. Nobody checks facts. Nobody feels any responsibility for bulls**t stuff they help spread out there. Hey! They're just passing along the viral goodies!

It's like a sneeze on an airplane. Everybody gets sick. Nobody's to blame.

But seriously. If you haven't read the post, read it here. And keep it in mind the next time you see something on the Internet, anywhere on the Internet. At its best aggregation is entertaining. Most of the time? It's gossip. And it's pretty much where the state of the art is going in tech, politics and this week, sports. Hell, it's not just going there. It's arrived. Have you heard the new stuff about Tiger?

Microsoft, Google Vie To Become Most Popular On Campus

2009-12-04T04:07:27Z

With the recession taking a bite out of university endowments and public school budgets alike, the competition between Google and Microsoft to convert the nation's colleges, universities and schools to the companies' free e-mail and other IT services that run on the Internet "cloud" -- outsourcing that can save a large university hundreds of thousands of dollars a year -- has only grown more fierce. With the two companies fighting to baptize a future generation of computer users with their products, the stakes for both are significant.

Anis Shivani: "Don't Be Evil": How Larry Page and Sergey Brin Really Think and Should We Worry About Google's Dominance

2009-12-03T11:26:38Z

INSIDE LARRY & SERGEY'S BRAIN
By Richard L. Brandt
Portfolio, 244 pages. $24.95

'Searching and organizing all the world's information is an unusually important task that should be carried out by a company that is trustworthy and interested in the public good."
--Larry & Sergey's statement to Wall Street in their 2004 IPO filing.

The challenge for any chronicler of a Silicon Valley company is to distinguish between hype and reality. In Google's case, because of its indisputable financial success, the task becomes harder. After all, when Google has cornered $20 billion of advertising revenue a year--revenue that has come from struggling newspapers and other traditional producers of "content," which are in danger of losing their footing altogether--the vast flows of money can hide many simmering problems. It is remarkable that after ten years of escalating market dominance, Google's one truly successful innovation remains its search engine; it has developed more than 150 other applications, but they're either not as popular as competitors' products, or have failed to generate revenue.

The first question Richard L. Brandt addresses is Google's ambition to be the world's librarian. Google has always been very clear that it wants to digitize every bit of information. This raises obvious questions about the power Google possesses over this information. Why is it that the world's governments are not organizing and digitizing this information? Obviously, it's natural to worry about a single corporation becoming the potential gateway to everything that has ever been written or said. Since Brandt did not have personal access to the Google founders, one might have expected greater skepticism toward the self-proclaimed ethical motivations of Google's founders--embodied in their ubiquitous motto, "Don't be evil." This ethos must be seen in the context of the period of Google's emergence; the great computer giant of its era, Microsoft, was being assailed from all corners--the public, competitors, and governments alike--for being the epitome of evil.

Libraries, it is to be noted, do not charge for their content. So far, neither does Google. But we are at a very early stage yet in the life of the Internet, and it remains to be seen how this evolves. That the gatekeeper should be a single private entity, which moreover imposes its own model of advertising (which may or may not work for every content provider), should provoke concern. It is the business model inside Google's algorithms--Google's own brain--that we should be concerned about, rather than the degree to which Larry Page and Sergey Brin's brains might be virtuous and ethical.

Google is the single greatest force currently putting pressure on existing business models for publishing, broadcasting, communications, and entertainment. Google, with its Android phone software, has entered the telephone business. The way Google looks at it, all forms of communication can be redefined as search--search according to Google, that is. Google is wary of competing portals--such as Facebook, or the iPhone, or anywhere else users congregate and feel most comfortable--posing a challenge to its preeminence as the Internet's homepage of choice. It has tried to keep the homepage simple, free as it is of clutter and distractions, and has not shown any inclination to be a portal, such as AOL, paradigmatically, tried to do.

But as time goes by and we get more and more used to Google as the homepage, it becomes more and more difficult for any competitor to pose a challenge. Inertia is a large part of the explanation, but so is ease of use--in that sense Google harkens back to the revolutionary Mosaic and Netscape browsers, which made the Internet accessible to all. Undoubtedly, Google's search produces better results than any competitor's, which is partly due to the self-reinforcing nature of Google searches. The more consumers use Google search (yielding cookies that refine future searches by the same user), the better it gets at what it does. In all these ways, Google gives us what we need, with the least friction possible; yet in all these ways Google also poses a potential danger of a monopoly using the wealth of the world's knowledge and information for its commercial purposes.

Certainly, reading about Google's success story is a restorative counterpoint to the legends of evil committed in the recent past by Wall Street, Detroit, and other American corporations, which created little value yet rewarded executives extravagantly. Google has fundamentally altered the world, probably far exceeding the capacity of any single government to do so. Politics is now potentially more transparent and accountable than ever before. Users can find information cheaper and quicker and better than ever before. There is no aspect of our lives that hasn't shifted, sometimes crucially, in response to the revolution of information Google has been instrumental in bringing about. Yet Google aims to be all-encompassing, and that always has to bring its own hazards. As Brandt notes, Google claimed it wasn't interested in developing a browser, but it did, with Chrome. Google is posing a direct challenge to Apple's iPhone, with its Android telephone software, available through Verizon. When Google introduced Gmail, it was revealed that information compiled from emails would be used to target advertisements to users.

Brandt, like other chroniclers of Google, emphasizes Larry & Sergey's similar intellectual upbringing, their common Montessori background, and their shared experience at Stanford graduate school, all of which are generally said to be the source of the free-flowing environment at the company. Yet this is too banal to be given much explanatory credence when it comes to Google's eventual success. There is nothing particularly new in this, as far as Silicon Valley goes. The challenge for a chronicler of Google is to separate the corporate mythology--the way the Google founders talk about the 20% time engineers are allowed to devote to their own projects, or the way the company has bent over backwards to provide food and daycare, and even massages, on campus--from the corporate business philosophy.

To the extent that Larry & Sergey are math prodigies--or computer geeks, if you will--and lack the humanistic dimension, we are carried forth into the brave new world on the wave of their shortcomings. They both seem to display a cavalier disregard for the value of content, as Brandt suggests at numerous points. Why would authors write books for free? Only to enrich Google with advertising dollars? What would be the quality of free books? If the existing publishing, journalistic, and broadcasting environments entirely collapsed tomorrow, one suspects Larry & Sergey wouldn't be too unhappy. Content--some sort of content--can always be procured. Free, as Chris Anderson recently pointed out in his new book, can work for authors, musicians, and other content producers, but why should advertising be the sole support for creative work? Surely that would have an effect on the quality of journalism or writing, if that were the case. Yet Google's brain knows no other dimension than to capture advertising dollars through the greatest possible numbers of clicks.

Outside Google, the talk may all be about controlled chaos, yet hierarchies obtain--as they must--within Google. Engineers are a cut above nonengineers. The company makes no bones about it. Again, this reflects Larry & Sergey's bias that data drives everything, that there is no other calculus for decision-making. One might argue that this dilutes the quality of Google's search. It's better than anything else out there, but what is out there is pathetic, as measured by the utterly soulless efforts of Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL, which wanted to serve as portals where users were captured and walled-off from other options, rather than as neutral arbiters of information. So Google search is an advantage over these barbaric early manifestations of what search never should have been, yet the vaunted PageRank algorithm often fails to value quality over quantity. And moreover, Google doesn't seem particularly interested in measuring the quality of, say, a New York Review of Books article on a particular subject, or of a scientific journal's, compared to the random musings of some uninformed ignoramus, should that have succeeded in getting the most views. The elevation of the engineer's data-driven, linear, antihumanist mind might have something to do with this manifestation in search results.

PageRank, Larry's great innovation, we learn from Brandt's interviews with Google's competitors, might not have been such a great innovation after all. The technology was open and available to others to exploit; the fact that they didn't do so speaks to Google's competitors' disinterest in making the Internet experience pleasurable and efficient and quick for users. Yet the public mythology of Google's discovery of its magic algorithm needs to be brought down a few further notches. CEO Eric Schmidt--who was brought on with some reluctance at first, after insistence by Google's venture capitalists--is variously seen as not being particularly effective, or as the genius who produces the first part of the "controlled chaos" equation. Actually, it doesn't take a genius to be the CEO of a corporation in as dominant a position, relative to its competitors, as Google currently is.

There's no denying that Google's corporate vision includes making things as easy for the user as possible. After all, the dominant late-nineties Internet portal was AOL, and we all remember how user-friendly that was! And we all remember the horrendous banner advertisements flashed on MSN. Google has insisted on not including advertisements on its homepage. Advertisements, when they do appear to the side of search results, are unobtrusive. Yet, again, there is a sense in which advertising--because it is so effective in the form Google uses it--has become the engine of growth, rather than being the outcome of the growth of valuable information on the Internet. It makes no difference to Google what viewers view, as long as it results in advertising dollars. AdWords, borrowed form GoTo (later renamed Overture), which places advertising on search pages, and AdSense, which places ads on other Web sites, are the two key innovations. In response, competitors like Microsoft have eyed Yahoo to try to develop a counter to Google's dominance of the advertising market, but nothing has come of it so far. The logical conclusion to what Google is doing would seem to be the eventual end of all forms of middlemen, so that advertising becomes completely automated, without the human touch. Not everyone will lament the end of the advertising executive or salesman, but there will be other consequences for content should that happen--consequences we ought to think about.

We have let Google slide on many things--its China censorship, to allow it to remain viable in that huge market (though nothing Google does seems to stall the rise of Baidu, the local search engine); its occasionally cavalier public posture toward privacy; and its indifference toward copyright laws--because we feel good about Google. That is both the most tremendous asset (unmatched by, say, Microsoft) and also perhaps the weakest foundation on which to build the world's greatest library. On the other hand, Brandt is right to wish that Google might become an ISP. Our experience of accessing the Internet would probably become much better. We shall see if Larry & Sergey's collective brain can keep up with the spontaneous evolution of the Internet, as embodied in the worldwide community of users. That is the greatest logic of all, and it may supersede the planning and visionary capacities of any Internet corporation--even one as sanctified and mythologized as Google.

Malware Causing Windows 7's 'Black Screen Of Death', Microsoft Says

2009-12-02T08:49:06Z

Microsoft's been looking into the black screen of death reports that have popped up in wake of a recent Windows update, and is back with its findings: the darkened screens giving Windows users so much trouble? It's likely down to pesky malware, not Windows itself.

Microsoft Investigates Windows' 'Black Screen Of Death' Problem

2009-12-01T07:47:04Z

Microsoft says it's looking into reports that its latest security updates are causing some Windows machines to stop working and display a mostly black screen with no desktop icons, taskbar, sidebar or other elements -- seizing up and displaying just a "My Computer" Explorer window, if they're lucky.

The issue reportedly affects a variety of Windows versions, including Wndows 7. PC World quotes the CEO of computer security firm Prevx saying it's "massively debilitating" for people who have it.

Why Newspapers Won't Get Rich Shunning Google

2009-11-30T08:31:59Z

SAN FRANCISCO — There's an intriguing idea floating around the media: Microsoft Corp. wants to undercut Google so badly in Internet search that it might pay newspapers to withhold their content from Google.

Just don't count on that turning into a lucrative plan for newspapers.

Mac Lovers Try To Take Over Microsoft's Holiday Window Display (UPDATED, PHOTOS)

2009-11-25T12:09:21Z

UPDATE: A member of the Windows PR team issued this statement regarding the Twitter feeds posted in the Saks Fifth Avenue holiday window display:

Important to note that the windows are the private property of Saks Fifth Avenue. As such, there are filters in place to make sure that in opening them up to Twitter feeds we had content that was appropriate for the general public to view and was within the holiday theme. This filter includes any attempt to spam the windows with negative commentary that is not in the spirit of the holidays. The windows have not been hijacked in any way.

------------------------------------

In an effort to promote its new software, Microsoft teamed up with New York's Saks Fifth Avenue store to help build Windows 7-powered holiday windows and to create a PC-themed lounge for shoppers.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, Mac lovers have tried to usurp part of the Saks Fifth Avenue window display and use it to promote Apple, and put-down Windows.

Here's how:

The Saks windows, which were inspired by scenes from the kids' book "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Flake," also feature a live Twitter feed that displays a stream of real-time Tweets tagged with the hashtag "#holidaywindows." These posts are all displayed, very publicly, on the Windows 7 holiday Windows right off of Manhattan's Fifth Avenue.

The Twitter feed was intended for customers to share their holiday wishes on the Microsoft-sponsored 50th street window.

Mac-loving Twitterers, however, have been using the hashtag to Tweet out how much they adore Apple products, to criticize Microsoft, and to point out Windows' flaws.

See the screenshot below for an example of what's been said about "#holidaywindows", and follow the Twitter feed below for more real-time updates.

And from Gizmodo:

See photos of Microsoft's Windows 7 holiday display at Saks below.

Follow HuffPostTech On Facebook And Twitter!

Chris Liddell: Microsoft CFO Is OUT, Peter Klein Steps Up

2009-11-24T17:34:13Z

Microsoft (MSFT) CFO Chris Liddell will leave the company at the end of 2009. Peter Klein will take his job

WSJ Could Ditch Google For $15 Million From Microsoft, Analysis Shows

2009-11-24T10:33:36Z

If we estimate that the Journal's online ad revenue is $100 million, using the New York Times as a rough benchmark, then the site would only lose $10 - $15 million to de-list from Google.

Jonathan Steinsapir: An Epic Internet Copyright Battle on the Horizon? Microsoft and News Corp. vs. Google, Maybe

2009-11-23T15:34:53Z

The internet is just beginning to buzz today regarding news that Microsoft has reportedly approached Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. to discuss a deal whereby News Corp. would "delist" its websites from Google (and, most likely, other search engines that are not using Microsoft's Bing search engine) in exchange for cash from Microsoft.

The Financial Times describes this as "offer[ing] a ray of light to the newspaper industry." The popular liberal blogger Atrios disagrees, and cuts to the heart of the story with the following two sentences : "Basically Microsoft's gonna pay people for the sole right to index their content. I'm guessing that aside from being a waste of money, I'm pretty sure 'I won't index you if you ask me politely not to' is more of a courtesy than something arising out of genuine copyright claim fears." As Atrios succinctly notes, there are basically two issues here: (1) Would such a deal be wise from a business perspective? and (2) Could Microsoft and News Corp. legally enforce such a deal against Google? I leave it to others more qualified than I to comment on the business wisdom of such a deal. Although Atrios proves that you don't need to be an intellectual property lawyer to spot and comment on the copyright issues here, it probably won't hurt to hear such a lawyer's initial thoughts on some of the legal issues raised. So, here goes . . .

In a nutshell, Google and other modern search engines work like this - they constantly "crawl" through websites and copy all the text from those sites onto their own servers. Then, when you enter search terms into Google, Google searches its own servers, which contain copies of almost all public websites. Google then returns a list of results pointing you to certain websites with snippets of relevant copied portions of those websites. And that's the issue: Google is copying other people's content. Copyright law forbids the unauthorized copying of others' content (of course, there are some nuances here as to what type of "content" is protected by copyright law - i.e., it must be "original" content - but set those nuances aside because they are not directly relevant to the issue here). So if News Corp. politely asks Google to stop copying its content, and Google ignores the request, Google will be engaging in the unauthorized copying of News Corp.'s content. And that folks is unquestionably a prima facie case of copyright infringement.

Again, however, you don't need to be an intellectual property lawyer to know that we are not at the end of the analysis. You see, there is this little doctrine in copyright law called "fair use." That doctrine provides that the copying of content for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is "fair" and is not infringement. The fair use analysis is case-specific and notoriously hard to predict - courts generally consider several factors in determining whether there is a fair use, including the purpose and character of the work, the amount of use, and the effect upon the market for the copyrighted work. So, would Google's copying be a fair use? On that question, there is no clear answer. And a lot of lawyers may get rich because of it.

Based on a line of cases where appellate courts have held that search engines' copying of images for indexing and search purposes is fair use , I would very tentatively predict that Google would come out on top if this issue actually gets litigated. But if this gets litigated, expect a big-time battle over every issue. For example, one of the most important issues will be who files a lawsuit first? Why does that matter? Because the party that files first generally gets to pick where they file, i.e., in which federal district court. And the fair use cases I have in mind are not from the Supreme Court; they are from the Ninth Circuit - the intermediate federal appeals court on the West Coast. Thus, those cases are only binding on the courts within the Ninth Circuit. Thus, Microsoft and News Corp. will want to file outside of the Ninth Circuit (in New York, for example, where News Corp. is headquartered). So, the first thing we may expect in any legal battle will be what lawyers call a "race to the courthouse" where Google will try to file first in the Ninth Circuit. Even if the case gets decided in the Ninth Circuit, however, Microsoft and News Corp. will still have some good arguments to get around the cases I have in mind. And even if they lose in the trial court and then in the Ninth Circuit, don't expect them to give up. There is still the Supreme Court, and given the importance of these issues, I would expect that the Justices would likely give strong consideration to taking the case.

In short, if Microsoft and News Corp. go forward with a deal whereby News Corp. demands that Google stop indexing its websites, don't be surprised if it leads to one of the most important copyright lawsuits in history. And don't be surprised if the ultimate outcome of such a lawsuit shapes the future of internet search.

Microsoft, News Corp Have Talked About De-Indexing From Google

2009-11-22T19:36:55Z

Microsoft has had discussions with News Corp over a plan that would involve the media company's being paid to "de-index" its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.

Ballmer: Windows 7 Sales Are 'Fantastic'

2009-11-20T11:04:59Z

Now, he claims that Windows 7 is selling even better, which we're inclined to believe based on the fantastic preorder figures. Speaking at Microsoft's shareholder meeting, Ballmer said Microsoft has "already sold twice as many units as any OS in a comparable time frame."

Jonas Brothers Promote Xbox 360

2009-11-20T10:45:41Z

The Xbox 360 gaming system, sold by the Microsoft Corporation, is being endorsed by the Jonas Brothers rock band in a campaign that appears in properties owned by the brothers' media partner, the Walt Disney Company.