<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.itskeptic.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
 <title>Microsoft</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft ups the ante on ITIL by releasing MOF into the public domain</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/microsoft-ups-ante-itil-releasing-mof-public-domai</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Just what sort of pacts has OGC signed with the money engines at TSO and APMG, or is HM still her own master?  When will ITIL be set free?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The real significance remains to be seen, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.technet.com/mof/archive/2008/09/12/mof-4-0-now-under-creative-commons-attribution-3-0-license-freely-adapt-mof-for-your-business-needs.aspx&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Microsoft&#039;s announcement&lt;/a&gt; that MOF 4.0 (Microsoft Operating Framework, a MS variant of ITIL) is now available under a &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Creative Commons&lt;/a&gt; licence to not only Share but also Remix(!) puts additional pressure on Castle ITIL&#039;s proprietary grip on the ITIL content.   The explicit mention of ITIL in the announcement suggests to me this pressure is not accidental.   MOF was already &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/DownLoads/details.aspx?familyid=457ED61D-27B8-49D1-BACA-B175E8F54C0C&amp;amp;displaylang=en&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;freely available for download&lt;/a&gt;, as also are COBIT and FITS, but this takes open content ITSM another step.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/microsoft-ups-ante-itil-releasing-mof-public-domai&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/microsoft-ups-ante-itil-releasing-mof-public-domai#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/1">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/141">MOF</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/32">OGC</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/167">open content</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:09:38 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">1144 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Watch out Microsoft, your spurious patents may be worthless</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/191</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Microsoft has made a practice of attempting to patent the obvious, not least of which &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/81&quot;&gt;is CMDB&lt;/a&gt;, but &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=mg19426035.700&amp;amp;feedId=online-news_rss20&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;a recent court ruling&lt;/a&gt; gives hope that those they do obtain can be invalidated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/191&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/191#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/cmdb">CMDB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 20:22:24 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">191 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Are Microsoft patenting CMDB? - The IT Skeptic</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/156</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A recent patent application appears to indicate that Microsoft is applying to patent CMDB.  This issue is not attracting the outrage that it ought to.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/156&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <enclosure url="http://www.itskeptic.org/audio/download/156/Microsoft_patenting_CMDB.mp3" length="2988269" type="audio/mpeg" />
 <itunes:duration>7:06</itunes:duration>
 <itunes:author>The IT Skeptic</itunes:author>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/156#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/cmdb">CMDB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/1">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/39">Podcasts</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:05:08 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">156 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Software branding seems to be in the hands of imbeciles.</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/155</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;What is it about these big software companies and their inability to come up with decent branding of their products (and companies)?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/155&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/155#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/17">service desk</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/25">vendors</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:27:58 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">155 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft are more avaricious than the Fat ITSM Four, by a nose</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/152</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/comment/reply/81/667#comment-667&quot;&gt;recent comment&lt;/a&gt; (reposted for your convenience) in response to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/81&quot;&gt;my item about Microsoft trying to patent CMDB&lt;/a&gt;, said&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Microsoft is worse than ITIL?&lt;br /&gt;
The Vendor and British ITIL cabal are busy redefining their closed, theoretical &quot;framework&quot; to include everything under the sun. And, they seem to be doing it for the express purpose of advancing the vendors sales performance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/152&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/152#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/1">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/25">vendors</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:22:59 -0600</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">152 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>What ARE Microsoft up to?  Patents on RSS, CMDB, IT operations...  Can they get away with this?</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/85</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The IT Skeptic &lt;a href=&quot;/node/81&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;recently reported&lt;/a&gt; on Microsoft&#039;s attempts to patent CMDB and other obvious concepts.   Now &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4191&amp;amp;tag=nl.e539&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;ZDNet reports&lt;/a&gt; they are trying to patent RSS too.  This smacks of the lunacy that only lawyers can generate, but what if they actually got away with it?  I can believe that as an organisation they are megalomaniac enough to think they can.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/85&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/85#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/cmdb">CMDB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/25">vendors</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:15:54 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">85 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Is Microsoft attempting to patent CMDB?</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/81</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A recent patent application appears to indicate that Microsoft is applying to patent CMDB.  This issue is not attracting the outrage that it ought to.  Next time you see your Microsoft rep, ask him/her WTF they are up to.  And if you get anything like a rational answer, post it here so we can all understand.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/81&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/81#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/114">classic Skeptic</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/cmdb">CMDB</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/1">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/26">Microsoft</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/25">vendors</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:36:29 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">81 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
