Last year we noted that while it was amusing to see a lawsuit from someone angry that they had to pay to downgrade from Vista to XP on their computer, it was hard to see how it was an antitrust violation, as the lawsuit was alleging. As we joked, perhaps that could be Microsoft's new business model: keep coming out with worse and worse operating systems, but charge people more and more to stick with the older systems. Either way, as we expected, that lawsuit didn't last long and was recently thrown out. As the court found, there was no evidence that Microsoft actually benefited from users downgrading. It seems pretty clear that Microsoft has always wanted people to sign up for its latest operating systems, and it would greatly prefer that over anyone (paying or not) downgrading to older versions. It also turned out that the "fee" the woman who brought the lawsuit paid was not to Microsoft, but to the computer manufacturer (in that case, Lenovo). In fact, the court pointed out that, technically, Microsoft gave a "free" extra operating system with the deal, since the buyer received both Vista and XP, at no additional revenue to Microsoft.

While it is rather amusing to see customers so interested in sticking with Windows XP rather than the supposedly more advanced Windows Vista that they're willing to pay a fee for the downgrade, it's tough to see much merit in the claim that such a charge is an antitrust violation. But, of course, that won't stop the lawyers from trying to convince a court that it most certainly is an abuse of a monopoly position. There's nothing monopolistic about charging more for a product that people want more. It certainly is ridiculous to claim that this is all a plan by Microsoft to squeeze extra money out of people by use of its monopoly position. Microsoft, by all accounts, would like nothing more than for folks to stop wanting to buy XP. The launch of Vista has been a massive disappointment for the company, not a part of a nefarious strategy to jack up the prices on XP.

It's no secret that Microsoft has a bit of a problem on its hands concerning the general public's impression of Microsoft Vista. The fact that people regularly joke about "upgrading" to the previous OS version, XP, is clearly an issue for the company. So what did it do? Apparently, it played a bit of a practical joke on people, getting them to play around with Vista, while pretending it was an early version of the OS that will come after Vista. Microsoft was clearly trying to get quotes out of people about how cool it looked -- and the company carefully made sure to get users of a wide variety of operating systems (Mac, Linux, Windows XP and Windows 2000, according to the site). While it might come across as a neat little publicity stunt, it does give you a sense of just how bad Microsoft's initial marketing campaign was. In order to make up for it, the company had to trick people into trying out Vista. Ouch.

It's long been assumed that Microsoft has built in various "backdoors" for law enforcement to get around its own security, but now reader Kevin Stapp writes in to let us know that the company has also been literally handing out the keys to law enforcement. Apparently, they're giving out special USB keys that simply get around Microsoft's security, allowing the holder of the key to very quickly get forensic information (including internet surfing history), passwords and supposedly encrypted data off of a laptop. While you can understand why police like this, the very fact that the backdoor is there and that a bunch of these USB keys are out there pretty much guarantees that those with nefarious intent also have such keys. The second you build in such backdoors, no matter how noble the reason, you can rest assured that they will be used by criminals as well. No matter what, for those of you who didn't already know it, now you have more evidence as to why trusting Microsoft's "security" isn't such a good idea. Update: Some folks in the comments, and Ed Bott, claim that this post is a misreading of the original story. The USB key includes a bunch of standard tools, not access to a "backdoor." The confusion, on my part, was due to the original article claiming that the device "can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer." In saying so, it appeared that the device must have access to a backdoor to decrypt the password -- but an update claims that it's merely "password security auditing technologies."

For years, Microsoft's software has had the (in some cases, well-deserved) reputation for being rather insecure -- leading many who were concerned about security to look for alternatives. However, a few years back, Bill Gates made it a focus within the company to change that and to make Microsoft's products much more secure, knowing that it was important to buyers. While some may question how successful Microsoft has been, how ironic is it that some are now claiming that Microsoft's focus on security in Vista is what's hurting adoption of the company's new operating system? It turns out that, while security is important to users, it's not so important that it comes at the expense of other things -- like stability and compatibility. In other words, while focusing on security, Microsoft may have dropped the ball on other features that actually are more important in the buying and upgrading decisions. On top of that, it appears that some people (again, reasonably so) are a bit annoyed that Microsoft is now touting "security" as a major feature of Vista -- as the company is basically admitting that it screwed up in previous products, and you should now pay Microsoft to upgrade away from its own crappy security. Not exactly a strong selling point.

In April we noted a lawsuit charging Microsoft with deceptive advertising for slapping a "Vista Capable" label on computers that will only run the Home Basic version of Windows. The lawyers are currently taking depositions in that case, and we're learning that even Microsoft's own executives can't keep their story straight. Apparently, a Microsoft executive stated that "capable is a statement that has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows Vista operating system." Not surprisingly, his lawyers quickly pulled him aside and pointed out that this statement was undermining their case, and he quickly changed his tune and said that "capable" meant able to run at least one version of Windows Vista. So Microsoft deservedly has egg on its face here. Still, I'm torn about whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Home Basic clearly is a version of Windows Vista, and so the statement that the machines were "Vista Capable" is technically true, albeit misleading. I just checked HP and Dell's website, and they're both selling their low-end machines with Home Basic. Unless there's evidence that consumers received more specific promises from sales reps or in marketing materials, it seems like a stretch to interpret "Vista Capable" as a promise that the machines would be able to run every version of Vista. Microsoft is getting some richly deserved bad press here, and that may be enough to make them be more careful in the future. It's not clear a class action lawsuit will accomplish anything beyond enriching the lawyers involved.

Considering all of the tumult surrounding the release of Vista, not to mention the lukewarm reaction to it, there's been a lot of discussion over whether or not Vista represents the last Windows operating system of its nature. On top of everything else, the emergence of web-based software is rapidly reducing the significance of the client-side operating system. But Microsoft insists that Windows as we know it here to stay and that the successor to Vista will be another "heavyweight" system. It's not surprising that Microsoft would have this attitude, as it has little choice but to continue feeding the Windows cash cow. The question for Microsoft, then, is whether it can do a better job of pushing out the next operating system than it did with Vista. Has the company identified why the product development cycle went so far awry, or can customers expect multi-year delays, once again? And can it address other complaints, such as the prodigious amount of computing power that it takes to run? It seems pretty safe to say that unless it addresses these issues, it's unlikely that the next version of the operating system will see any more success.