There’s a joke going around technology media circles at the moment: a Microsoft employee dropped a Kin prototype phone in a Californian bar, nobody noticed. It has a certain resonance, not least because Microsoft would quite likely happily kill for the sort of publicity being generated for Apple by the iPhone 4G dropped in a bar story currently on every newswire but which started over at Gizmodo.

While Apple has now apparently asked tech site Gizmodo, which supposedly purchased the prototype iPhone 4G from an individual who ‘found’ it in a bar, to give it’s phone back. Of course, Gizmodo is likely to be more than happy to oblige no matter how much it paid for the phone. Even if it paid $10,000 which is at the upper end of the guessing game scale (most sources suggest $5000 is nearer the mark) the site will have seen a huge return on investment in terms of the on-site advertising revenue on those pages breaking the news but also the longer term impact of the reputational kudos. The only spoiler has been some lingering doubt, much of it spread by other sites which one has to assume are jealous at not getting the thing themselves, over the provenance on the device. Some are claiming it is just another fake, one more hoax in the long history of iPhone development misdirection. If Apple want it back, and according to Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell it most certainly does, then it must be the real thing, no?

Meanwhile, Microsoft can only dream of the kind of media hysteria that has been unleashed over the last week as a result of that dropped prototype. The best it has managed so far, in relation to the badly named Kin phone (as in who would want that Kin Microsoft phone, speak it out loud for the full effect) has been some rather lame controversy concerning a promotional video showing some bloke taking photos of his man-boobs to share with the world. It encourages sexting, cry the usual suspects, and if it were a woman doing the up-blouse videoing then everyone would be up in arms about it. Of course, it wasn’t a woman, so nobody really cares that much. A bit like the Kin itself. No joke.

File under ‘Stupid Decisions of the 21st Century’ as Microsoft confirms that there will be no cut and paste function in Windows Phone 7 series.

According to a question and answer session at the MIX10 Microsoft Developers Conference during which Microsoft stated that clipboard operations would not be supported in Windows Phone 7 Series, thatwould appear to be the case.

Now you may be thinking, no big deal as it took Apple years to get cut and paste onto the iPhone. But wait a minute, this is different isn’t it? This is Microsoft we are talking about, a company whose Windows Mobile software has included cut and paste forever. Heck, it’s an integral part of how people who have a Windows Mobile powered handset work.

Work being the operative word, on so many levels. If Windows Phone 7 Series is to be aimed at the work market, then surely cut and paste is somewhat vital to get quite a lot of work tasks completed? Not according to Microsoft which has apparently said that most Office users don’t need clipboard functionality.

Ah, right.

Just one more reason why Windows Phone 7 Series devices will remain on my do not touch with a very long barge pole list then…

Get this: developers of ’second-tier’ web browsers are moaning about how unfair it is that Microsoft is advertising their products for free. Sheesh!

You can, I do believe, file this one firmly under WTF? Apparently, forcing Microsoft into displaying the ballot screen and effectively giving them free advertising is not enough. Now six of the seven clients which do not make it onto the first screen of browser software choices, the so called second-tier browsers, are complaining to the European Commission for what they consider an even fairer slice of the pie as it were.

While the developers of the Avant, Flock, GreenBrowser, Maxthon, Sleipnir and SlimBrowser browser clients have petitioned EC vice-president Neelie Kroes to get Microsoft to change the ballot screen so that their somewhat obscure browsers are given a bit more prominence. The argument being that users only see five browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari and Internet Explorer itself) by default without scrolling to reveal the less popular choices. What the moaning minnies want is an indication that they actually exist, encouraging users to scroll right and reveal them.

The petition states that the design “leaves the vast majority of users unaware that there are more than five browsers to choose from” and complains that the browser developers “did not have the opportunity to offer any Browser Choice screen design feedback”. Well duh, why should they have had? Indeed, the petition suggests quite rightly that Microsoft has no intention of making any changes.

If I were those second-tier browser developers I’d be keeping quiet on this one. Heck it’s a pretty massive publicity boost that they have been included at all, considering that most users will not have a clue as to their existence and be even less bothered about using them. the way that the Internet works is such that if they were really that worthy then surely they would have floated like cream to the top, although still underneath the silver foil cap that it Internet Explorer of course. While you might argue that Chrome only made the impact it did on market share courtesy of being developed by Google, you’d be wrong. Sure, that did it no harm but if it were not for the fact that it’s so fast and fabulous (yes I’m an ex-Firefox convert in danger of becoming a Chrome fanboy) it would have sunk without trace in the market share stakes. And the argument falls apart entirely when you consider the share that Firefox managed to carve out on word of mouth alone.

So my advice would be to Shut The Flip Up and worry less about Microsoft being a big pile of poo pants for not giving your second-tier clients more prominence in this free advertising jamboree and worry more about improving those clients so that they become first-tier through functional merit.

If like some 40% or so of Internet users you are still using Internet Explorer 6 or 7, now might be a good time to upgrade following news of the publication of some nasty exploit code over the weekend.

According to Symantec, which has quickly tested the exploit code that appeared on the Bugtraq list at insecure.org, the code as it stands is not 100% reliable but the security researchers expect that a “fully-functional reliable exploit will be available in the near future”. And that means exploit code that will enable websites to be infected, and any IE6 and 7 users with JavaScript enabled to be compromised.

The code, as is and however unreliable, has already been shown to work on IE6 and 7 running under Windows XP SP3, although there are no reports of exploits in the wild as of yet. My hunch is that will all change this week as the bad guys will no doubt be working hard over the weekend to rush out attacks before all the security vendors have updated signatures rolled out. Microsoft will, I imagine, be reactive rather than proactive with a patch only being prioritised after such attacks become widespread.

The code posted exploits a vulnerability in CSS handling in Internet Explorer 6 and 7, and Symantec advises IE users to only visit trusted sites and disable JavaScript until a Microsoft fix appears. Some might suggest switching to Firefox, but given the number of flaws reported lately upgrading to IE 8 might be a better idea.

According to one leading security research lab, Windows 7 is vulnerable to an astonishing 8 out of 10 viruses it was exposed to during testing. But wait a minute, just how astonishing is this, really?

Sophos loaded a retail release copy of Windows 7 onto a clean PC, configured it to the system default as far as the User Account Control process was concerned, and failed to install any anti-virus software. OK, so this might be a little unfair you would think, but it does represent the actions of many a person new to the new OS. Microsoft insists it is the most secure version of Windows yet, and ‘ordinary users’ will take the company at its word.

What Sophos did next was less typical, instead of connecting the machine to the Internet and clicking every link under the sun until it was infected up the wazoo, it instead “grabbed the next 10 unique samples that arrived in the SophosLabs feed to see how well the newer, more secure version of Windows and UAC held up” says researcher Chet Wisniewski.

Unsurprisingly, Windows 7 didn’t do too well in fighting off these new threats. Indeed, it only managed to prevent 2 out of those 10 from operating correctly. Wisniewski insists that this just goes to show that his pre-launch warning that the UAC is not fit to protect a PC from malware was indeed correct. While I actually agree with him on this point I’d also argue that any machine that is not running an up to date anti-virus solution is asking for trouble no matter what version of Windows is installed.

I’d be more interested to see that same test performed on the same Windows 7 PC but running different AV solutions, including the new and free Microsoft Security Essentials to be honest. I wonder how far and how many of those 10 viruses would get then?

I wonder if Microsoft will come out fighting against Sophos this time, like it did when XP Mode security came under attack in the summer?

It is always worth keeping an eye on patent applications from the bigger players in IT as they have the potential to reveal possible future business models long before any official statement.

In the past Microsoft has been held up for ridicule with some of the patent applications it has made. Perhaps most notable amongst these was the infamous Page Up Page Down patent. The latest Microsoft patent application to reach my radar will not, most likely, cause quite the same amount of sheer disbelief although it does point to something of a change in the way the Seattle giant sells us software and services.

Microsoft has filed for a patent for ‘Time-Based Licenses’ and the application abstract reveals this to be a method and system for “issuing a number of different types of time-based licenses associated with software products”.

The technical stuff about the system including an activation server which might maintain licensing information in a licensing database, along with a licensing platform which may might request issuance and renewal of time-based licenses, is interesting enough. But not nearly as interesting as the statement that each of the time-based licenses may be associated with respective product keys and may have a number of configurable parameters to make time-based licenses suitable for different licensing business models. Microsoft says, in the patent application, that licensing business models could include “a non-renewable evaluation license, a renewable trial license, a one-time promotion license, and a subscription license” as well as “a configurable parameter” which indicates “an amount of time for a grace period after a time-based license would have normally expired”.

I’m not sure how well this is going to go down with folk who are used to paying for their software with a single, one-off, license. Does this application reveal that Microsoft is going to get serious about Software as a Service after all? However, as we get increasingly comfortable renting our applications (anti-virus being a prime example) and increasingly comfortable with our software being in the cloud, it is surely only a matter of time before that includes the OS. Anyone prepared to wager if Windows 8 will be the first OS for hire from Microsoft?

I thought I had experienced more than my fair share of Xbox 360 problems (see here and here for details and then add to that a failed DVD drive on a new machine for good measure) but a new survey would seem to suggest my life with the Xbox has been pretty much par for the course.

According to the Game Informer magazine survey of close to 5000 readers, the Nintendo Wii has a failure rate of just 6.8 percent, and the Sony PlayStation 3 a tad more on 10.6 percent. But the Microsoft Xbox 360 is likely to break five times as often as the PS3 on a stunningly poor failure rate of 54.2 percent.

According to the survey, the Xbox 360 was also the most used of the three consoles with it being used between 3 to 5 hours every day by 40 percent of users, while 37 percent of PS3 owners said the same. Most Wii players, 41 percent, played for less than 1 hour per day meanwhile.

So, given my own poor experience with the Xbox 360 have I stopped playing? No. Have I vowed never to buy another Xbox? No. In fact, despite all the problems with the hardware it has one thing going for it that is like a drug to games players: games. Yep, the games just keep me coming back for more. In fact, my Sony PS3 sees more use as the family Blu-ray player than it does for actual game-play it has to be said. My view seems to tally with the Game Informer survey as only 3.8 percent of Xbox 360 owners said that enough was enough and hardware failures meant they were giving up on the console.

Does that give Microsoft a pass? Not on your nelly. Come on Microsoft, play the game and get your hardware act together. I honestly cannot imagine any other manufacturer of any other hardware in any other genre surviving this kind of failure rate.

The Army News Service reports that the US Army has opted to form a strategic alliance with Vista by migrating all of its Windows-based computers by December 31st 2009. The systems change, which will include upgrading from MS Office 2003 to MS Office 2007, has been ordered so as to “bolster Internet security” and standardise information systems.

According to Dr Amy Harding, Director of Enterprise Information Technology Services for the Army, currently some 13 percent of computers have already been migrated to Vista. “It’s for all desktop computers on the SIPR and NIPRNET” Harding said, of classified and unclassified networks. Standalone weapons systems networks are exempted, of course.

Some have suggested that the US Army has somehow declared war on Windows 7, but that would be missing the point. It has not said no to Windows 7 but rather not even asked the question as of yet. The decision to move to Vista was mandated in a ‘Fragmentary Order’ that was published way back in November 2008. It takes time and a lot of testing before a decision to upgrade any large enterprise to a new OS can be made, the Army is no different in this regard. If anything, one would hope it takes even longer than an ordinary business in making these decisions. Indeed, any suggestion that Windows 7, which has not even been released yet, should be up for consideration is laughable. As Marcus D. Good, Chief of the Information Technology Systems Support Division at DOIM, says “The Army has been testing Vista since its release and has run it through the Army Golden Master program. The Army Golden Master program is responsible for the release of the Army standard baseline configurations for commonly used computing environments within the Army Enterprise Infrastructure, the team responsible for making sure applications that ran on XP will run on Vista.”

Of course, many will be asking why the US Army is using Windows at all, let alone Vista which was voted the worst performing IT product of the year recently.

Here’s the thing: say you have invested a lot of time and money in shoving out yet another new Windows OS hot on the heels of, let’s face it, a not very well received new Windows OS in the shape of Vista. Then, obviously, you want people to try it, so some clever sort in marketing strategy says “why don’t we let users play with the release candidate of Windows 7 on as many different computers as they like, without restriction, for a whole year?”

You know what, it is actually a good idea. Until, that is, you get to the bit about what happens when that year is up. Or rather what happens before that year is up. Look, the smart money says that when you arrive at June 1st 2010, the day that the freebie expires, it stops working and offers an upgrade at a cost option or similar. Fair enough? Hey, even a little nagging during the month or so before to let people know that expiry is about to hit them in the face like a wet fish would be acceptable, and even sensible.

What is totally mental, and I mean running around the supermarket without your pants on shouting “where is the mustard” mad, would be to start shutting down the user PC every two hours until they upgrade to a paid for OS and to start this nutball feature THREE MONTHS before the thing actually expires.

Yet that is exactly what some loon at Microsoft thought would be a good idea, and that’s what is going to happen. Starting March 1st 2010 your PC will shut down every two hours.

Here is what Mental Microsoft has to say on the matter: “The RC will expire on June 1, 2010. Starting on March 1, 2010, your PC will begin shutting down every two hours. Windows will notify you two weeks before the bi-hourly shutdowns start. To avoid interruption, you’ll need to install a non-expired version of Windows before March 1, 2010. You’ll also need to install the programs and data that you want to use.”

Oh well, that’s OK then.

I don’t suppose some a little more sensible could add a few words could they? How about someone from the Microsoft Partner experience side of things? ” To avoid interruption, it’s recommended that you and your customers rebuild test machines by using a valid Windows operating system before Windows 7 Beta and Windows 7 RC expire.”

OK, I give up, where are my underpants and a couple of pencils.

WIBBLE
WIBBLE
WIBBLE
WIBBLE
WIBBLE

File under: a bad day for Microsoft. But a pretty good one for the Australian inventor who will be adding a few big fat zeroes to his bank balance after the largest software business on the planet lost a patent infringement case in the US which is set to cost it a sweet half a billion dollars in damages.

Although Ric Richardson, the founder of Uniloc which was at the heart of the case, will not get all that dosh in his back pocket, you can be sure his percentage of the payout pie will be classed as a nice little earner.

Richardson designed the anti-piracy software that Uniloc successfully claimed was being used within Windows XP and Office software. Microsoft, naturally, is said to be “very disappointed” with the verdict, not least I suspect as jury determined it to be an international patent infringement which means that huge damages award (apparently the 5th highest in US patent law history) could yet double or triple.

Of course, Microsoft is going to appeal on the grounds that the original patent is invalid. The patent, dating from the 90’s, covers software registration systems that prevent the casual copying onto more than the permitted number of computers. Does sound rather familiar, does it not?