What is Visto Up To? A Question of Strategic Intent
On December 14, 2005, Visto announced a patent licensing agreement with NTP, the patent holding company which is engaged in a high profile patent infringement case with RIM. One day later, Visto filed a patent infringement case against Microsoft, claiming misappropriation of Visto's intellectual property. Microsoft offers push-based wireless email capabilities in Exchange Server 2003. Visto said that it was seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Microsoft from using its intellectual property. And a few days ago, on January 31, Visto filed a second patent infringement case against Good Technology, and seeks the same outcome: a permanent injunction against Good's use of its intellectual property.
Intent: Wound Opponents
Why is Visto doing this? Why is it doing it now? To determine what it is up to, and why it is following this path, let's step back and consider the key decision facing BlackBerry users and IT mobility managers: what alternative platform will we embrace if RIM is closed down? And what is one of the key decision points that will be being discussed: if we embrace the platform under consideration, what is the risk that we will have to switch it out due to another patent infringement ruling? You can be sure that if push-comes-to-shove with RIM, enterprise IT mobility managers will not want to be forced to switch out a new acquired platform for something else because of another patent infrigement filing. The change from BlackBerry will be costly in terms of new wireless email server software and new devices, not to mention the productivity cost and retraining expenses for staff and executives.
One natural alternative to RIM is Microsoft. Proper push-based wireless email is going to be added at no charge to Exchange Server 2003 once the technology is finished. Organizations could elect to wait for that. While Microsoft does not appear to have a licensing agreement with NTP, it has the financial wherewithall to pay up if required. By suing Microsoft and seeking a permanent injunction, Visto is attempting to muddy the waters, sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, and raise questions over the validity of Microsoft's technology and approach.
Another natural alternative is Good Technology, which has been in business for a decent number of years (vendor stability), has a solid product and approach (product maturity), and works with a collection of devices (no device vendor lock-in). Unlike Microsoft, Good does have a patent licensing agreement with NTP, taken out no doubt with the strategic intent of calming fears on the behalf of its customers and prospects. As with Microsoft, Visto's patent infringement case thrusts a dagger through Good's defenses, thereby weakening them as an opponent in the eyes of a prospect. The conversation might run as such:
IT Manager: "In summary, Good's technology looks good, and it works with a variety of devices. They also have a licensing agreement with NTP, so we've covered our bases there. I recommend that we proceed with a Good implementation."
CIO (looking up from computer screen): "Well it was a good idea, but Visto just filed a patent infringement suit against them. It's too risky now. You'll have to get rid of them."
IT Manager: "Okay. I'll check out Visto then."
Next Actions
So what should Microsoft and Good Technology do? One option is to settle immediately. Call Visto. Set up that meeting. Determine the price. Pay up. Issue press release. Etc, etc. That would remove the competitive and psychological benefit that Visto holds at the moment. The second alternative is to counter-sue for patent infringement. That would negate what Visto has done to each of them, and call into question Visto's own viability in the eyes of enterprise IT mobility managers. With Microsoft's vast hoard of patents, it shouldn't be too difficult to find something that is potentially infringing. One would hope, for Good's sake, that they have patents covering their inventions. If not, the situation doesn't look (good?) bright.
As a final word, I speculate that Visto is feverishly working to pull together a similar patent infringement case against Nokia / Intellisync, another very natural alternative. Perhaps Intellisync should sue first.
Quest Releases Archive Manager 3.0, based on AfterMail's Technology
Quest Software provides tools for enterprise IT organizations to enhance the management of applications, databases, and Microsoft infrastructure. One of its infrastructure management products for Microsoft Exchange Server is Archive Manager, an email archiving product.
Archive Manager Version 1.0, released in December 2004, consolidated PST files and messaging data into a centralized archive, that being a separate Microsoft Exchange Server. Pricing was $15 per managed mailbox. Version 2.0 debuted 8 months later in August 2005, with new compliance management capabilities, such as keyword filtering. Pricing doubled to $30 per managed mailbox. Version 3.0 was released earlier this week, on January 30. It is an entirely new code base, being a re-branding of the technology acquired when Quest purchased AfterMail Limited earlier in January. Pricing has increased by $10 per managed mailbox, to $40. AfterMail, which has been written about previously on this site, provided a namesake email archiving tool that used a relational database management system for storing the archived data.
The new Version 3.0 of Archive Manager provides a super-set of capabilities of the previous Version 2.0. Here's a few highlights:
- Storage System. Version 2.0 used Exchange Server; Version 3.0 uses Microsoft SQL Server, a relational database management system. This provides much enhanced scalability, and the use of a relational store gives new opportunities for leveraging corporate knowledge throughout the organization.
- Capture Everything. Both Version 2.0 and 3.0 capture all mail going through the Exchange Server, that being both internal and external email traffic. Version 3.0 uses journalling, a standard feature of Exchange.
- Full-Text Indexing. Version 2.0 relied on Exchange. Version 3.0 introduces a new way of doing full-text indexing, but it is still very much on offer.
- New Tools for Getting Data Out. Version 3.0 includes Web services, RSS feeds, and other ways of integrating email messages into other tools and systems. For example, a formatted URL can be passed to Version 3.0, and a list of matching customer emails will be presented for rendering within, say, a CRM system.
Hence, Quest has significantly and rapidly improved its product offering by purchasing a competitor which had better technology. AfterMail's technology, combined with Quest's sales and channel footprint, make a great match.
In closing, there are a couple of other implications of this acquisition and the new product version announcement. Firstly, Quest has the option of expanding its infrastructure line into new markets. The AfterMail technology works with Novell GroupWise and general-purpose SMTP servers, and Lotus Notes/Domino support was under development when the acquisition was announced. Quest will incur ongoing support costs if it embraces this opportunity, and will need to cultivate new extended go-to-market sales channels. My net-net view is that Quest will continue to focus on the Exchange Server opportunity only, and let these other alternatives slide. As always, however, time will tell!
Secondly, from the first time that I heard about AfterMail, I was intrigued by the prospect of using its technology as a collaborative workspace alternative, or more specifically, as an alternative to the discussion and document tools within a collaborative workspace. Rather than expect people to stop using email for talking about a project, or for using email to share files, they could continue as before and we would let the AfterMail technology assemble a view of those interactions. Project participants could track conversations via an RSS feed out of AfterMail, and the single instancing of documents and messages would minimize confusion. Although there were a couple of elements missing--such as (1) an automatic way of assembling the list of project discussions, and (2) a method of tracking the evolution of document editions--I think it has real potential as a disruptive idea. I will be watching Quest's moves carefully in this area.
The Week in Collaboration is authored by Michael Sampson, who spends his time explaining what's going on in the industry, directing vendors to make better products, and advising organizations on how to best embrace collaboration. You can reach Michael via michael.sampson@shared-spaces.com.
How does the Quest archive handle the common compliancy requirement for Write Once Read Many (WORM) hard copy back up? Does it index and archive all attachments inbound and outbound?
Posted by: Martin Edic | February 07, 2006 at 04:23 AM
Archive Manager operates above the WORM Layer by remodelling email into its best format. We work with partners like EMC for WORM storage.
Yes it indexes email and attachments both inbound and outbound and singl einstances at the attachment level. We can also search on attchments and report what emails a particlar attachment is on.
Posted by: Rod Drury | February 07, 2006 at 08:33 AM
Archive Manager operates above the WORM Layer by remodelling email into its best format. We work with partners like EMC for WORM storage.
Yes it indexes email and attachments both inbound and outbound and singl einstances at the attachment level. We can also search on attchments and report what emails a particlar attachment is on.
Posted by: Rod Drury | February 07, 2006 at 08:34 AM