That’s the title of an article in the latest McLean Report, a regular newsletter of the Info-Tech Research Group. I suspect most law firms will upgrade to Vista at the time of their next hardware refresh – not before.

Personally, I think the recently announced Microsoft Office Communications Suite that provides unified messaging has the potential to have a greater impact on law office productivity than Vista.

The McLean Report is only available by paid subscription, but the article is reproduced here with their permission.

Read the Info-Tech article

Go to the Info-Tech web site

Read a ZDNet article on Microsoft Office Communications Suite

David Canton – for the London Free Press – March 3, 2007

Read this on Canoe

A recent Information Week article criticized software licenses, saying they contain so many ridiculous provisions they will soon attract litigation similar to patent enforcement litigation.

That’s not likely to happen in my view, but licenses do often contain onerous or ridiculous provisions.

Almost everyone has been presented with a End User License Agreement (EULA –often pronounced YOO-lah). They are also known as click-wrap agreements. It is almost impossible to use a computer without eventually being asked to click the “I agree” button. They are a contract between the producer of software or a service and its user.

Some feel EULAs have gotten out of control. Few people read them. Even if one did not like what they read, the only choice is to not install or use the product. Some EULAs have contained language where you agree to let them install spyware on your computer, or delete any file they want on your hard-drive.

So are such provisions actually binding?The fact is that click wrap like agreements have been around forever. Every time you buy a concert ticket, park in a lot or attend a sports event you are agreeing to things you have not likely read.

These one-sided agreements are called contracts of adhesion. All of these things come with terms and conditions you accept merely by entering the stadium or putting money into the parking meter.

There is a line of “ticket cases” where the courts decided such agreements are binding, so long as reasonable efforts were made to bring them to the user’s attention and the terms are reasonable. The courts recognize this type of agreement is necessary for modern life, but, at the same time, their one-sided nature is open to abuse.

The courts and legislation in various jurisdictions have made clear the act of clicking “I agree” is sufficient to be bound by the contract, just as if one had signed it.

The courts will not, however, enforce provisions they deem to be unexpected or unusual. Provisions that purport to allow the software vendor to use your computer to send spam or where you consent to infecting your computer with a virus would clearly not be enforceable.

Courts also have found vendors liable for damages where the courts felt the vendor was incompetent, despite the usual EULA clauses saying vendors are not liable for anything.

The click-wrap agreement is under no danger or becoming the next form of nuisance lawsuit. The courts simply won’t enforce any parts of them that are unreasonable. Of course, the definition of unreasonable is always subject to interpretation.

David Canton – for the London Free Press – January 17, 2007

Read this on Canoe

Software distributors continue to play hardball and crack down on copyright infringements and users of unlicensed software.

Symantec recently filed a lawsuit against eight companies, including ANYI, SILI and their affiliates who allegedly run a global counterfeit distribution operation focused primarily in the U.S. and Canada.

Symantec alleges the parties participated in trademark infringement, copyright infringement, fraud, unfair competition and false advertising, and is seeking damages in excess of $15 million in lost profits.

The company warns that “aside from the financial loss incurred by this activity, counterfeit software can also damage a user’s operating system due to faulty code or cause a user’s system to be wracked with security vulnerabilities.”

Payless Shoesource Inc. and discount clothing chain Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. have decided to pay about $425,000 in settlement of claims they had used unlicensed software.

The Business Software Alliance, an industry trade group that polices software licences, received reports on Payless and Burlington through their online reporting system where they offer rewards up to $200,000.

As part of the settlement, Payless and Burlington agreed to delete unlicensed software, purchase replacement software and improve their software management practices.

Both the Symantec lawsuit and the Payless and Burlington settlements show it can be more expensive to illegally copy and use software than to obtain and use it legally.

Yet a study by the Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft states Canada’s software piracy rate is 36 per cent. The United States rate is 21 per cent, the United Kingdom’s is 27 per cent and Sweden’s is 26 per cent.

One difficulty with lowering the software piracy rate was revealed in a recent study showing only 15 per cent of Canadians feel very confident they would be able to tell the difference between legal and illegal commercial software.

To recognize legitimate and illegitimate software:

* Check the price. Beware of “too good to be true” prices.

* Make sure you receive a licence. It is a standard in the software industry that legal pieces of software come with a licence.

* Look for documentation. The package should contain the original media, manuals, instructions and registration cards.

* Use caution when purchasing from unknown entities advertising on an online auction or classified ad.

In order to protect your computer, business and legal liabilities, ensure your business or organization uses legally purchased software in the right quantities.

Slashdot refers to an article that details a lawsuit between a Wisconsin State Trooper and his employer over the ownership of software the officer wrote. The software streamlines the writng of traffic tickets. Seems that the software works so well that it has commercial value. The officer says he developed it on his own time. His employer says he developed it while at work under the direction of his employer.

While the tests for who rightly owns such software are not that difficult in theory – in practice it comes down to the facts. But facts, as we all know, are subject to proof, interpretation and spin. And of course one’s perception of the facts and issues worth fighting over increase when something becomes valuable.

This kind of fight is common, but can be easily avoided if a written arrangement is entered into up front that clearly states who owns the product, what resources are to be used to develop it, and who gets to use it.

Read the Slashdot post

Read the Milwaukee Sentinal Journal article

CNET has a new website at webware.com to cover browser based online applications.

As they put it: There’s a fundamental shift underway in how people use computers and the Internet. Every day, more real utility is being delivered over the Web. Full applications can now be run in a browser, accessible from any computer, and software is no longer required for many applications. Software is becoming Webware.

Take a look if you are curious about what webware is all about, or want to see examples of webware apps.

I have been asked to contribute an occasional post to the Canadian IT Manager blog. It is run by Microsoft, and includes content by independent professionals.

My first post yesterday was 1 of 2 parts on Legal Matters IT Managers Need to Be Aware Of - the 2nd part will be posted today.

Read part 1 of Legal Matters IT Managers Need to Be Aware Of

Read Part 2

Go to the main page of the IT Manager blog

Read the entry announcing my presence as a guest blogger (among other things)

David Canton – For the London Free Press – June 17, 2006

Read this on Canoe

It’s no surprise that those fighting in court do not always act in a rational manner.

Software using game theory has been used to resolve litigious issues in a way that results in better results for both sides.

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics, or the application of mathematical techniques to other areas. Game theory studies how people interact in a strategic manner with others, then tests the utility, or potential beneficial or harmful effects, of the outcomes produced by these interactions.

The television reality show Survivor is a study in game theory. Papers have been published about how the contestants use different strategies, such as the popular “alliance,” and how these can help or hinder their success.

The study of strategic interactions is highly complex, as one must account not only for actions and words, but how their possible strategies are perceived by others and, in turn, how to react to potential strategic responses.

In real life situations people do not always act rationally to maximize personal gain. In the case of a recently separated couple, for example, where tensions and emotions may be running high, each party may be more interested in hurting their ex rather than benefiting themselves.

Alternatively, each side may calculate that they will get more if they go after their partner’s prized possessions. Often, it comes down to the financial value of their property, but the reality is that most people have attachments to certain items that go beyond money.

The television reality show Survivor is a study in game theory.

Researchers in Australia have used game theory to develop a software program called Family Winner that is designed to produce a fairer outcome for couples dividing property. In creating the software, John Zeleznikow and Emilia Bellucci focused on creating a system where each party gets more of what they actually want.

The program sounds quite simple in theory. Each party gets a certain number of points. They are then told to assign points to items based on how much they want each item. The more they value the property, the more points they award to that particular item.

The parties also assign a number to their preferences for dealing with certain property, such as whether they feel the matrimonial home should be sold or not. The program begins with the simplest decision — the item with the greatest difference in value to each party.

In reality, the program is complex. It takes into account a hierarchy of issues based on how much each side values each issue or item, and self-adjusts based on who got what. In other words, if the program mathematically determines that you lose an item of value to you, you receive compensation on other items of value.

Last year, the software was tested in a study of 50 couples and the outcomes were evaluated by Victoria Legal Aid. It turns out that each party was much more likely to end up with more of what they wanted. The study concluded each party received 70 to 80 per cent of their original list.

The creators are hopeful that this software proves as effective in practice as it did in the test run. They envision the software being adjusted for use in all sorts of disputes, such as building disputes or industrial conflicts.

Taking the emotions or politics out of the equation may lead to results that allow each party to get more of what they really want.

ITBusiness.ca has an article about optimizing Microsoft licensing. The gist of the article is that there is money to be saved if a business takes a bit of time to sort out the software it actually does have, what it actually needs, and compares that to the various licensing programs to determine the right one.

This is true for all software, but more so for vendors like Microsoft that offer different licensing models.

The article is based on recent presentations made by the Info-Tech Research Group in various locations in Canada and the US. I was at the one in London on Friday. It was an excellent, practical presentation on both Microsoft licensing optimization, and VoIP implementation.

Read the ITBusiness article

Go to the Info-Tech Research Group site

An article from the UK claims that the UK government has threatened to cancel its order from the US for the Joint Strike Fighter if it does not obtain the source code for the plane’s software.

Apparently they are concerned that the US could disable the planes though the software.

Its not unusual for software purchasers to want source code to be escrowed with a third party in case the vendor becomes insolvent, or to include representations in licenses that there are no disabling codes in software.

Vendors generally guard their source code for competitive reasons – add national security in this case. The UK understandably wants to be in control of its own planes. The US may be reluctant to divulge this as they lose control of the software.

Read the vnunet.com article

That’s the title of an article in the latest Info-Tech Advisor, a regular newsletter of the Info-Tech Research Group. The article starts off by saying:

Up to 50% of project rework is attributable to problems with requirements. Of projects that fail, 70% fail due to poor requirements. Quickly identify requirements risk factors and implement an effective requirements management process to avoid becoming another project failure statistic.

Its a good read for anyone responsible for an organization’s IT projects. The Info-Tech Advisor is only available by paid subscription, but a pdf of this article is at the link below, with their permission.

And take a look at their web site – including the chart comparing them with other providers.

Read the article

Go to the Info-Tech Research Group’s web site.