Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Microsoft: Vista follow-up likely in 2009

With Vista just out the door, Microsoft is now drawing up plans to deliver its follow-up client operating system by the end of 2009, according to the executive in charge of building the product’s core components.

If you can’t migrate to a non-Microsoft platform, you’re just not trying hard enough. If people shun Vista in large enough numbers starting now, MS would be discouraged from meeting the new 2009 goal. Then all would be right with the planet.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Of Course He’s a Democrat

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger announced Tuesday that he will propose legislation to keep people from using their cell phones, iPods, blackberrys and other electronic devices while crossing the street in the Big Apple. Kruger drew up the legislation in response to two deaths but he doesn’t seem to realize that you can’t really protect people from themselves

The headline above wasn’t really necessary. But the point is valid.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Vista upgrades: a case of technology hobbled by business models?

ZDNet UK
Posted by Matt Loney
As mentioned, it was only after over 2.5 hours on the phone that a customer service representative told me that Microsoft is now aware of the situation. HOWEVER … they are unable to provide users with a new product key. In other words … My legally purchased copy of Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade is currently USELESS.

Another report has Apple asking users to delay upgrading to Vista. With experiences like the one above, why would you have to be asked to avoid Microsoft? (Stanford Matthews, MoreWhat.com)

When is a firewall not a firewall? When it’s Vista’s built-in firewall
Windows Vista’s Firewall offers false sense of security
Vista antispyware fails security test
Windows Vista Anti-virus Software Fails Tests
Microsoft and McAfee fail to protect Vista from viruses
Microsoft, McAfee fail to spot Vista viruses
Microsoft OneCare fails virus test
Security watchers lambast Vista
Microsoft has no plans to close Vista upgrade loophole
Amazon mislead customers over Vista OEM upgrade

Incompatible Software

Best Buy mentions on a TV ad that they have 60,000 Vista trained monkeys employees. Becoming a nation of sheep.

Cisco Sues Apple for Trademark Infringement

Suit Filed to Protect Cisco’s iPhone® Trademark

SAN JOSE, Calif., January 10, 2007 - Cisco® today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc., seeking to prevent Apple from infringing upon and deliberately copying and using Cisco’s registered iPhone trademark.

Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years. Infogear’s original filing for the trademark dates to March 20, 1996. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has been shipping a new family of iPhone products since early last year. On Dec. 18, Linksys expanded the iPhone® family with additional products.

“Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco’s iPhone name,” said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco. “There is no doubt that Apple’s new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.

“Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand,” Chandler concluded.

With its lawsuit, Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco’s iPhone trademark. For more information on the Cisco iPhone product line, please visit www.linksys.com/iphone.

First, how does Apple not know iPhone is a Cisco trademark. Ok, Apple didn’t think Cisco would notice after all the press coverage Apple got this week and last. Sure. It is somewhat astonishing that there are so many corporate lawsuits over this and similar arguments like patent infringement, etc. Maybe it’s alright to take these chances and pay the litigation expenses since it appears all or most corporations do this. It is probably so pervasive that they simply define it as a cost of doing business and pass the costs, like all others to the consumer. Someday they make this a best practice. Waste money trying to ripoff a competitor and charge the losses to the consumer. There’s an idea.
C. Harris
MoreWhat.com