Doubt's Log

Uniter, not divider? Yeah right.

I find it intriguing that Microsoft has, at times, offered to make available portions of its intellectual property on reciprocal royalty free terms, but strenuously objects when others chose to do the same. [Sam Ruby's Radio Weblog]

Cheap shot.  The reality is that the standard becomes a fixed thing, and the IP requirements don't extend past the single standard.

Uh oh... Dave is bundling. :)

Advogato has an article "What would you do about Microsoft?" which focuses on buissness practices related remedies. Strangly enough it reads almost exactly like the federal government's settlement, except for the 6 month notice on API changes (which is pretty much how it is already for windows) and the applicability to all products instead of just windows. It's nice to see this sort of verification that the feds might have done it right.

Slashdot has an article Perens Discredits Mundie's Attack On GPL, the Peren's article is here. There are a few things to state here. First, the GPL requirements on software running over GPL code is neatly exempted for operating systems kernels (Linux here), I don't think people would be as intrested in running Linux if it wasn't. Matter in fact, I believe the majority $1.9 billion he talks about isn't GPL at all, but a conbination of other noncommercial licences. Next, about passport. First try to make kerberos scale to world wide usage, that's going to be some intresting engineering, legal, and buissness work, regardless of the basic tech being developed by MIT. Second from what I've seen federation has always been part of the game plan for passport.

On a related note: the liberty allience did a good job of demonstrating the low trust and Anything But Microsoft (ABM) attitudes the market has build up for Microsoft; people jumpped on the bandwagon of the devil they didn't know in spite of the one they did. Since there is no technology or system present to see or evaluate, who knows how much "liberty" is really in there? Also unclear to me is if ABM is going to be enough for the other two big players to open up thier services to the rest of the market. I predicted before the LA came about that there would be three big initital players in the online identity buissness. Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL/TW. In the after LA world, I don't know if this has really changed, or that we now have yet another player. The rosiest view would be a system as interoperatable and decentrallized as email, the worst case scenario is the IM market all over again. Don't get me wrong, the split up and mostly incompatable system seems to work for credit cards, and it is likely that we will have multiple identities anyhow (work, personal, etc), so multiple systems aren't such a bad thing, they are just one more complexity in life.

Experts: Sun lawsuit reaches too far. Legal experts describe Sun's lawsuit against Microsoft as very aggressive and expansive, going well beyond anything pursued by federal and state trustbusters. [CNET News.com]

I understood that from reading Sun's page explaining the scope of the lawsuit that they had some stuff to prove, but 10 years worth? I guess Sun isn't going for the quick buck, they are going for the longterm throw everything in and see what we can get out, strategy. Another thing that struck me was that I thought that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly in the server space, but it then hit me that the same trick used in the client space can be used in the server space, just define the relevent market as "Commercial operatings systems on the intel-compatible market" and voila, instant monopoly.

Wasting time while writing my review, and mjourd sends me the link for David Brin's talk. Notes:

• Our civilization is the first is a long time to not focus on the "fall from grace". We wield what used to be considered godlike powers. We think the problems of the world are mostly solvable, and will enable us to get to the next ones. "progress"
• What are the two forms of propganda messages people don't notice because they have already accepted them? Suspision of authority and Tolerance.
• The weird thing about the drug war is that you normal spend 10% of your resources in war doing research, which we haven't. What do we find about addiction now with some research? It's what lets us work on the things we love. Drugs are subsitute high. Just as bad as Self Rightiousness (which feels damn good).
• More power should be tempered with more oversight. (ashcroft example)
• You can't trade off freedom and security, you must have both. Win/Win must be rule.
• We train high schoolers not about facts but about debating, taking sides and initaitive.

This morning I went to a code review. This afternoon I'm listening to Leigh Thompson's presentation about Buissness Negotiation (another Linda Stone sponcered talk). Here are my notes:

• Good for me is Bad for you and ViceVersa
• They are extreme, we are reasonable. (hint: you have more in common then you think)
• Facts support us. (we view ourselves more honest then others)
• Overconfidence (A netural party will agree with us)
• Bully coercion will break down the other person.
• Hard vrs Soft dichotomy

Make the Pie Bigger
She also said that negotiation should try to happen along the optimal line (expand the pie) which is the win-win negotiation. Ask questions. Reveal information about preferences for repocitocy in thier preferences. Package issues, avoid working out each issue one at a time. Make multiple offers at the same value for you to get a feel for what is important to the other person. Try for a settlement after the settlement (you can always fall back on the previous one). Use differences (put money behind thier words, boat/plane example)

Maximizing your side
Next, understand what what is thier alternative without an agreement. This is the source of negotiating power. Knowing thiers helps, but doesn't get as much as you might think because of emotion. First Offer is an advantage (everything else being equal). Reanchor when things are unreasonable. No unilateral consessions,"I've gone this far, what can you do?". Watch the magnitude of concessions cause at the end if there is a mismatch (lets split the difference, and you get screwed).

Other Stuff
There is a difference between disputes and negotiations, in disputes the alternative is still tied to person you are dealing with (court for example). Rights and Power based negotiation is not useful. Spotlight/attention is bad. Do you have everyone needed to negotiate? People are risk adverse when they feel they have something to gain, and risk seeking when they see the glass half empty. Gloating makes people precieve that there is a power difference (with backlash effects)