OnLive in Trouble for Violating Microsoft's Windows License?

Status
Not open for further replies.

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
31
[citation][nom]phamhlam[/nom]How could Onlive seriously not know they were doing this? I am glad MSFT is keeping cool and are talking about a licensing deal.[/citation]

I'm not! I'd rather MS sue the hell out of OnLive, that company's services are disgusting, I can't stand cloud computing and streaming games/desktops. Thoughtless waste of network bandwidth.
 

zankuto

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2010
155
0
18,680
0
Microsoft keeping its promise not to sue even when its an outrageous rip of their products and very sue worthy? Lets give microsoft some major credit here I doubt any other company would keep their promise like this. Bravo microsoft.
 

vilenjan

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2010
514
0
19,060
35
Yes good job MS not sending thier lawyer army after OnLive. Hopefully OnLive will be smart and pay up the royalties it owes to MS as apposed getting sued in to bankruptcy.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
do i have to get my robot a lics. to run my computer when i tell the robot to fetch me the morning news and the computer runs Windows or IE?
this sounds pretty bogus if it's just a remote way of running the machine.
seems like an excessive way for microsoft to collect fees for peripherals that are not dependent on their system to operate
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]zankuto[/nom]Microsoft keeping its promise not to sue even when its an outrageous rip of their products and very sue worthy? Lets give microsoft some major credit here I doubt any other company would keep their promise like this. Bravo microsoft.[/citation]

lol, you have to think of this.

lets say the license price was 100
lets say onlive effed up,
now microsoft has 2 options, sue them for 500
or negotiate a license price of between 100-499

you see, looking at this cynically, you see an over all GREAT profit that can be made here by not going to court, but having court and a lost cause as a threat.

that said, its VERY big of microsoft to not go the court route, because either way they are probably paying the same in legal fees regardless of the result, and they could probably get more out of them in court too...

but than again i cant see onlive as having a crap ton of extra money. so maybe court would be worse.
 

lucky015

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
77
0
18,630
0
Looks to me like OnLive paid for a service and Microsoft have gone "Hold on, We didn't know you could/would use it like this, lets find a way to charge you more for it".

I imagine they have some form of pre-negotiated VLK deal with Microsoft, Being a business.
 

archange

Distinguished
May 7, 2007
305
0
18,780
0
Microsoft, like many others, apply "per user" licensing to their software in any client / server scenario. This is called CAL (Client Access License). Since the users of any given OnLive machine are basically countless, thought arises for upping license fees. As simple as that.

The other licensing method in practice is "per processor". That would maybe help in this case, however being (a lot) more expensive.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that current licenses are nothing else but schemes to rake in more money from customers. Thing is that they work pretty well for the corporations and nobody bothers contesting them. Hek, it;s THEIR software, even if it's on YOUR computer - right?
 

fixxxer113

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
297
2
18,815
22
[citation][nom]archange[/nom]Microsoft, like many others, apply "per user" licensing to their software in any client / server scenario. This is called CAL (Client Access License). Since the users of any given OnLive machine are basically countless, thought arises for upping license fees. As simple as that.The other licensing method in practice is "per processor". That would maybe help in this case, however being (a lot) more expensive.Anyway, my personal opinion is that current licenses are nothing else but schemes to rake in more money from customers. Thing is that they work pretty well for the corporations and nobody bothers contesting them. Hek, it;s THEIR software, even if it's on YOUR computer - right?[/citation]


This case is not a matter of CAL or Per Processor Licensing. That will be the case for the actual server infrastructure licenses needed to run this service. For someone to use Windows as a service through virtual desktop, they have to use VDA and VDI licenses, or have active Software Assurance as the article says. In both cases, the licenses are not perpetual and need renewal every 1(VDA/VDI) or 2 - 3 (SA) years.

My work involves a lot of consulting on Microsoft Licensing and I can honestly say that their system is chaotic... A lot of customers and sometimes MS themselves don't have a clear idea of what a certain customer has to pay for in a certain scenario. That said, OnLive is not any random customer... They should have consulted lisencing specialists from Microsoft before going through with this.

Microsoft had no reason to sue them right away. Their general view in cases like this is that the customer is "mislicensed" and just needs to comply.
 

agnickolov

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
520
0
18,980
0
This actually makes perfect sense. OnLive has the potential to become a big corporate customer for Microsoft. You don't make money in the long run by alienating your potential customers dragging them to court...
 

tlmck

Distinguished
Jun 12, 2007
2,570
0
21,160
103
"Our licensing terms provide clarity and consistency for our partners, ensure a quality experience for end customers using Windows across a variety of devices...
There is no way he could have said this with a straight face.
 

hiruu

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2007
93
0
18,630
0
I love it...you don't see people trying to give apple software away for free. or Google...oh wait they have none worthwhile to do so with
 

arlandi

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2007
171
0
18,690
1
smart business move by msft.
if they sue onlive, msft will loose more revenue. imagine having another licensing stream from onlive desktop users.
lets hope they all will find a win-win scenario (and also not to have ridiculous pricing as a result)
 

fixxxer113

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
297
2
18,815
22


I can't even read it with a straight face :p
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
0
19,780
0
Seems someone is about to get a$$ raped with a chainsaw. Never liked their service anyway, to much latency (laggy) and the games they provide have to low gfx quality due to the software is run at minimum settings and then the poor quality gfx is compressed with loss resulting in even below minimum quality. No thx!
 

gallidorn

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2009
104
0
18,680
0
If OnLive was smart, they would have used Ubuntu Linux instead of Windows 7. Then there wouldn't be any problem with licensing of the operating system or the software being used.
 

anonymous98273198

Honorable
Mar 7, 2012
5
0
10,510
0
"Using a Windows desktop through hosted virtual desktop (HVD) requires careful licensing that often includes additional products, fees or Software Assurance," the report states. "Further, Microsoft often requires service providers to license products they provide through a Service Provider License Agreement (SPLA) with monthly payments for devices running the software."

"You may be a victim of software counter-fitting" - NO, YOU ARE THE VICTIM, NOT ME!
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
I didn't think about the licensing issues when OnLive was announced and I've been through the M$ licensing mess at the corporate level. M$ even has a certification specifically for licensing (Volume Licensing Specialist). Access licenses have been required on shared Windows systems even back in the Windows Terminal Server days.

Unfortunately for OnLive I don't think there is any way around it. Wine is not reliable (or fast) enough for hosted gaming and I doubt OnLive will get any significant game developers to make Linux versions just for them. Many Windows multiplayer games have Linux servers available, but not Linux clients.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY