Currently, there is a lot of confusion among all parties, the software
companies, the stockholders, the consumers and the courts, as to just what
vaporware entails. The Court doesn't understand the software industry's
software delivery schedule and wo uld like to view cases on a completely
anticompetitive basis. Some software companies view vaporware as a means
of previewing technology to its customers, but others feel it is a tactic
to bury weaker competition.
Is there a possible synthesis among all parties as to what the term vaporware
concerns and also what is does not concern? If so, what might it
Is there such a thing as "good vaporware and bad vaporware?" Does your
answer change if you are a vice president of Microsoft? What about if you
are the vice president of a small company trying to gain a foothold in
the software market? Did y our position change? How?
A standard releasement announcement of 6 months has already been proposed
and ignored. Should there be government involvement in regulating software
releases? Why or why not?
Should Microsoft, and other large companies, be treated by different laws
than other companies due to the size of its market control? Is it ethical
to create or apply a law to a company because of its size and influence?
Is Microsoft's new tactic to completely withhold release dates ethical?
Should stockholders be eligible for recompensation from their investments
for stock prices that drop due to a delay in software release, or should
that be viewed as just part of the risk factor involved in investing in
a software company?
Should companies that fail due to a delay in release be able to sue the
company responsible? Could such a dependent strategy by the failing company
be considered risky and the ensueing claim unfounded?