Microsoft to Share 'Spare' Tech with Startups 272
Anil Kandangath writes "Long criticized for not being innovative enough, Microsoft has announced that it will share some of its 'spare' unreleased technology with startups so that they can get to market soooner with or without Microsoft's branding. Some of the 20 technologies being offered from Microsoft R&D include face recognition, high performance audio/video conferencing and natural language processing technology."
Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't MS just giving away tech that they are not interested in. This is MS wanting some startup to make something out of the tech that MS could not. Then MS will either sue the startup out of business or buy them out. So basically MS gets someone else to develop the product and they get to monopolize it.
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:3, Interesting)
No, there is nothing wrong with a company wanting to get a return on their invetstment, all companies want that.
Well, I don't agree with you there. I don't see how a user benefits from a monopoly owning all of the tech. Did you read any of the legal docs around this MS R&D "give away"? MS is not just giving it a
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:5, Insightful)
But then you ask.. just WHY are they spending so much money on this "research" when it is plainly obvious from the history of the industry that most software related innovation happens automatically and incrementally. Let me give you a hint: MS is one of the few players that really truly supports software patents.. and it's because they're one of the only ones that benefits.
So no, MS should not be allowed to profit on the vast majority of the "research" coming out of their labs. It's not because good ideas aren't being generated. It's because those same good ideas would have come out naturally without one company spending billions to force them out before their time. Do you see what they're trying to do? In the face of competition from Open Source and (moreso) an industry quickly shifting to vendor-neutral standards, they're trying to monopolize innovation itself. Why do you think they suddenly set up all those cheap overseas research labs? I don't see any dramatic improvement in their products. No, they're basically astroturfing all possible future directions of innovation with patents in attempt to make it impossible to compete without them still getting a piece of the action. That's not capitalism. It's unethical business practice.
Software patents are wrong and this is a perfect example of why. Hopefully most of the rest of the world will maintain a better grasp on sanity.
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:3, Insightful)
And if they *are* "just a MS Word doc", what are they going to be locked-in to? A licencing deal? Big deal - that happens all the time, and no-one is being forced into this.
You don't think MS will get some cut of any product this startup makes?
Yes, if the terms of the agreement stipulate that. So what? That's what licencing means. You either pay an up-front fee, or a per-unit/time fee, or a mixture of both. So what? Don't like it, don't do i
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, when that poor little guy isn't looking, provided what he does with the technology is interesting enough, big bad Microsoft will come along and ... swallow him up! That's right, they'll pay that peppy lil' entrepreneur a ton of money for the company he put together and he'll walk away a rich man.
Or when they see that he's doing really well with it, some time after the IPO they'll offer to buy his company for a fraction of what it's worth. He'll turn the offer down because he's enjoying the work,
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:3, Interesting)
PATENTS.
Surely Microsoft has already all the patents of that research properly covered, so, if someone tries to do something that could compete vs them in any way Microsoft just have to enforce its patents.
Re:Hey! Just like a drug dealer! (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, I'm sure that a lot of this is driven by the researchers and academics and MS Research, who are accus
Hey! One Man's Junk... (Score:2)
Cheap start-up buying (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there's small print that prevents the company from selling out to MS enemies.
For the start-ups, it looks good too. They have some sort of Microsoft "special relationship"/endorsement/whatever that they can wave in front of the venture capitalists. Someone is always going to get screwed over, but it isn't the start ups or MS.
Re:Cheap start-up buying (Score:2)
New motto: "It just doesn't work." (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New motto: "It just doesn't work." (Score:5, Insightful)
No loss, possible win. If somebody does build upon it successfully, they can get the novel warm glow of saying that the tech "originated" at Microsoft.
Re:New motto: "It just doesn't work." (Score:2)
It works too well (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New motto: "It just doesn't work." (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my take on it: Microsoft Research was founded not as a way of performing valuable research for Microsoft, but as a way of preventing smart people from doing valuable research. By locking up the industry brainiacs, Microsoft can virtually guarantee that no one will come up with the technology to challenge them.
That's my take on it, anyway. Too bad they missed a few [google.com].
Re:New motto: "It just doesn't work." (Score:2)
Or they're just astroturfing all possible future paths of innovation with patents. I think that's a more logical conclusion given the circumstances.
Window into the Abyss (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine that there is a technology so crappy that even Microsoft have to admit to themselves that it is sheer, utter, unusable crap that they don't dare stake the last two nanofibres of their reputation on. Imagine that they come across something like this every year or two, and we never hear about it unless the money mags gurgle about the investment.
Now they have a way to get some money for that botulism-ridden dogfood.
Re:Window into the Abyss (Score:4, Insightful)
It is stille the same old story with MS now. There is nothing better than XP (until Longhorn comes out). There is nothing better than .Net (until the next iteration of the MS-dev-flavor-of-the-year comes out). There is nothing better than MS SQL Server 2000 (until the next flavor of SQL Server comes out). Etc, etc, etc.
Ready for the spin... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2, Insightful)
And I remember someone saying something in the "It Just Works" comments about how the Microsoft suits are too conservative to allow the innovation to actually be used in the products. In the absense of a long and detailed history of everything Microsoft Research has ever done, that sounds reasonable.
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2)
To put it shortly, it sucked. They didn't help us, they used us to alpha / beta their slow, crappy product and then turned around and sold it to three other people at once. We were asking for it, but since they gave us such shitty support and implementation was such a nightmare, we didn't have any advantage over our competitors at the time. There was no real benefit to the company for doing what
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:5, Funny)
All the free software is written in Visual Basic.
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2)
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2, Funny)
I like "Quote" Marks ! (Score:2)
I think the head line should have been:
and If we want to make it *REALLY* cynical
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just my impression of MS's offer. I'd be happy to know I'm wrong, and have a link to the site showing what this speaker technology is so I can fiddle with it for my own non-commercial reasons.
Sure (Score:2)
As with all things Microsoft it's not evil on the face of it, but it gives them a great big "pull here for evil" lever to activate when they so choose. The real problem is they've shown a weakness in regards to large levers.
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2, Interesting)
We do not support one Linux product and no one in this field does. There are a few uses for Unix though (calculations that go back a long time).
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:3, Funny)
And there you have it. Incontrovertible proof that Microsoft is Evil(TM).
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2)
No. It wasn't "SCO Xenix" that had more users than all other commercial UNIX systems combined. It was "Microsoft Xenix", back when Microsoft was going to make MS-DOS into a kind of "Xenix Lite", back when you could make the MS-DOS file names and command options "Xenix Compatible" by setting your SWITCHAR to "-", back when Bill Gates hadn't yet fallen in love with the Macintosh.
What?
"To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit different, it takes somethin
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, Microsoft Xenix was a good OS. But it never really did go mainstream. And Microsoft was feeling far more pressure to work on graphical interfaces than they were feeling to produce a multiuser system. Believe it or not, the majority of users were happy with DOS. So happy, that practically every computer maker of the time was falling over themselves to use that or CP/M. (Anyone remember the FM-Towns?)
It was less of a matter of Bill Gates becoming infatuated with the Mac, and more of a matter of VisiOn, Xerox, and finally Apple all making Microsoft irrelivant. Microsoft had started their Windows effort in direct response to VisiOn, but wasn't seeing much enthusiam for it. They then went and checked out Xerox and STILL couldn't find their problem. Then Apple started whispering about the Mac and Bill Gates managed to court Jobs into letting him have a peek. All under the guise of being the number one applications vendor for the Mac.
As a result, Bill Gates said whatever it took to steal the technology he needed to make Windows work. Steve Jobs wasn't stupid and managed to figure out what was going on, but he figured that Gates didn't know his head from his rear and wouldn't pose much of a threat. In exchange, the Mac would gain Microsoft Basic and Microsoft's early Office applications.
Well, Jobs was right. Microsoft's Windows shell didn't do so well, taking until version 3.x to finally manage any sort of market sway. Unfortunately, the board gave Jobs the boot and Microsoft went on to use the next logical step in Apple's technology while Apple sat around and lost all of its brainpower.
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft Xenix was a good OS. But it never really did go mainstream.
Depends on what you mean by "mainstream". As a multi-user OS it was pretty damn mainstream in the small-business world, and its effect on operating systems at Microsoft has been huge... and all that is much more important than how "good" it was. In
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2)
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2, Insightful)
Believe it or not just because a company is shitty now doesn't mean they didn't ever do anything worthwhile.
Re:Ready for the spin... (Score:2)
That was later, after Microsoft jettisoned it (and their customers). Speaking as one of the customers Microsoft turned over to SCO, things went downhill FAST after that.
Deal with the ... (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Translation: (Score:2, Funny)
Especially if they are gay!
Ugh (Score:2, Insightful)
How long until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ted
Re:How long until... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
Re:How long until... (Score:2)
soooner (Score:3, Funny)
I swear, its like there is a program which randomly inserts spelling errors into the stories. It's just amazing- all this discussion about high tech software and the people running the site can't even manage to use a simple spell-checker.
Re:soooner (Score:2)
Now compare this little girl's work to that of the average slashdot poster, who incorrectly spells words like "lose" and can't correctly place an apostrophe even by sheer luck. Truly awesome.
Re:soooner (Score:2)
Aithur that oar the peeple hear kant sppel wirth a dam. Their kneeds too bee moor atension speant prouphing you're poaste beefour submiteing.
obligatory comment (Score:3, Funny)
Anything related to browser/OS security? (Score:5, Funny)
*Rimshot*
Microsoft & Mo' Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft & Mo' Money (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as the risk goes, if you know a safer way of making that kind of money, I'd like to hear it.
Heck, I'd do it myself, but it would probably mean I h
Re:Microsoft & Mo' Money (Score:2)
Why only 'startups'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why only 'startups'? (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd just need to take a look around, pick a topic and visit some conferences. You'd be surprised how many good ideas you can pick up, some of them in their infancy, some of them mature. You know, there are quite many of us out there who really publish their ideas, for everyone to see. Granted, some of those get patented if they hold some businness opportunity, but the vast majority isn't. And sometimes all it takes is a great idea to get you s
Port-a-Potty (Score:4, Funny)
Do you think they will let us do Linux ports of their software?
Woop Woop (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has always taken a beating among the open-source community for their 'closed' attitude, and I don't believe this act on their part is going to be taken as a gesture of anything positive here.
However, I imagine the people who actually develop tools and resources for the OSC will be quite happy to hear this news. Microsoft will *NOT* be giving them a working, polished product to sell and distribute, but not all of the people who enjoy development are in it for the money. Microsoft is handing you the keys to millions of dollars worth of R&D luxury, and I think it is going to be an enjoyable ride.
This technology will only go as far as the developers who pick it up can carry it, but it is an opportunity for a lot of talented people to look at the developmental stages of a Microsoft project, and take that knowledge to other useful platforms in the future.
I for one shall enjoy the wrath of /. as I say "Thanks."
Thanks for Nothing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Woop Woop (Score:2)
Yes, but as open source advocates are fond of pointing out when people bitch about the restrictions of the GPL (myself included) "You can't complain if you agreed to the terms and conditions before you took the code".
No one is forcing these startups to take the research that Microsoft is offering them. These startups probably already know something about working with Microsoft and a
A patent trap? (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise, its a good move by MS to expand the economic pie of the MS universe.
**** you, pay me. (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like Goodfellas.
Microsoft Research (Score:5, Interesting)
Check their research areas [microsoft.com] ranging from: Algorithms and Theory, Hardware Development, Human-Computer Interaction, Machine Learning, Adaptation, and Intelligence, Multimedia and Graphics, Search, Retrieval, and Knowledge Management, Security and Cryptography, Social Computing, Software Development and Systems, Architectures, Mobility, and Networking.
Here [microsoft.com] is the full list.
Instead of calling this evil... (Score:2, Informative)
Those who are pro-OSS
Re:Instead of calling this evil... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it is called "Apple".
Re:Instead of calling this evil... (Score:2)
I believe his words were "They had one of those gay Macs there so they could see why people still bought them."
Yep. Some nice spin on that one.
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
Cast a suspicious eye when Microsoft is licensing software patents that should never have gotten issued to former employees. Then in lieu of payments they are accepting royalties on products that may never make any money or taking an interest in the company? Shifty stuff there. It looks to me like they are trying to create a 'body of evidence' for a future court battle over patents.
About 20 failed projects (Score:4, Interesting)
It is good PR for Microsoft. It makes them appear innovative and willing to share their technology.
And most likely this is without risk for them. They probably only allow other small companies to work on these failed projects under conditions that would allow them to get full control of anything usefull developed.
At least they're .... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was at IBM in 1994, a guy there wrote a chat program that not only worked over TCP/IP, but over Netbios, Novell, and some network protocols. When he showed it to his boss, the manager said, "We're not in that business." and the software was mothballed on some server. A friend of mine who worked at Digital saw similar things happen there. In short, some really cool stuff had to be invented later on. The thing that killed me was the people who got the IRC stuff going made millions, and poor slobs working for these big corps got nothing.
Adding value to the platform (Score:3, Insightful)
MS make virtually all their money from the "horizontal" markets of Windows and Office. Every startup that creates new software that runs on Windows adds value to the Windows platform and thus sells more copies of Windows. Since Microsoft doesn't really do "niche markets", it's still beneficial for them if niche market players develop software for the Windows platform - every copy of the niche market software sold is also a sale of Windows. If MS is seeing ISVs in these markets are starting to develop software for alternate platforms, it may be worthwhile to add competing products that run on Windows rather.
I have no idea if that's the actual reasoning behind this, it's just an idea, as you can be sure the press release is mostly just spin and it's hard to tell what the full story is here. Maybe it's just a kind of investment, with MS taking part ownership but still letting someone else manage these "niche market" businesses that they're not interested in. Perhaps their view is that they'll simply buy any startups that appear to be taking off and develop interesting technology .. offloading R&D costs onto others but still reaping benefits by "buying and integrating" whenever the R&D pays off - the same "buy all vaguely interesting startups" model they've been using for years (because MS never innovate, they only buy innovative technology from others and integrate it), maybe they're running out of innovative startups to buy ;)
Re:Adding value to the platform (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a smart move on Microsoft's part because it creates lots of dependencies with new startups.
The First 6 Innovations for Only ONE PENNY! (Score:2, Funny)
Innovate? (Score:4, Insightful)
v. tr. - To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.
v. intr. - To begin or introduce something new.
Face recognition, video conferencing, and language processing are not new ideas. There are other technologies already doing this. Therefore Microsoft still is not innovative.
First Ford, now Startup Companies (Score:2)
Microsoft, not satisfied with dragging Ford into bankrupty is now making sure that no small startup company will arise to challenge its dominance of the computer software industry b y seeding small compainies with leftover innovations that it could not sell i.e. Clippy and Bob.
Heh (Score:4, Interesting)
Legalese Hoax From M$ (Score:3, Interesting)
It is intended to mystify lawmakers in the near future with some artificial case study and counter the common sense understanding the IP privilegia are harmfull to tech advance.
Remember how patents on steam engine effectively delayed industrial revolution by 50 years. Two generations.
Re:Legalese Hoax From M$ (Score:5, Interesting)
I, for one, am surprised.
Re:Legalese Hoax From M$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Fortunately, the way they are going about it seems, thus far, to be startup friendly.
this isn't news (Score:3, Funny)
Name any business that partnered with Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Name any business that partnered with Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
And what CPU is the next X-Box using? (Score:2)
Re:Name any business that partnered with Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
Not sure what your point is.
Intel, HP, Cisco, AMD, AT&T, (Score:2)
HP: Microsoft attempted to use OEM licensing agreement to use for free [forbes.com] HPs intellectual property.
Cisco : Microsoft's planned Network Access Protection (NAP) technology [techtarget.com].
AMD : At first Microsoft made a big deal about XBox2 having an AMD CPU, now using 3.5+ GHz IBM PowerPC.
AT+T : Going back in the past a bit, but Microsoft orignally attempted to sell Xenix as a pure clone without paying fees to AT+T for the use of the orignal Unix
Are you kidding me? (Score:2)
Well, just name a business that Microsoft ... (Score:2)
Philanthropy (Score:2, Informative)
IBM shares technology by making their patents free. Microsoft shares by selling their technology.
Re:Philanthropy (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow - high performance audio/video conferencing (Score:2, Insightful)
And... isn't this about Microsoft licensing their development? That is, not giving it away?
Not that it's a bad thing per se, but a lot of people are reading this as Microsoft giving stuff away for free.
Re:Wow - high performance audio/video conferencing (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear Bill Goats (Score:2)
Your 'tech' help will be appreciated.
Sincerely Yours
Bruce Perens
Garbageware (Score:2)
Yeeessh... (Score:3, Funny)