Get My Podcast On iTunes!
Badges

vexpert_logo_100x57

gestaltitbadge

follow-me-twitter

Subscribe to me on FriendFeed

Comments / DISQUS
Tag Cloud
Feedjit.com
«
»

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm – VMware Sets Record Straight On Competition At VMworld

PostDateIcon May 28th, 2009 | PostAuthorIcon Author: Rich Brambley

In response to the stir created earlier today when Brian Madden interpreted new verbiage in the VMworld Sponsors and Exhibitors contract as a ban against competition, the VMworld Team has set the record straight on the VMworld.com blog by posting VMworld 2009 Exhibitors.

“VMware is totally committed to continuing to make VMworld the leading virtualization conference in the world, highlighting the rich, diverse
ecosystem that is the virtualization marketplace. Just to be clear, the exhibitor sponsorship contract we are using is standard across the
industry. Nothing out of the ordinary or meant to limit the value of VMworld.

As you’d expect, Microsoft and Citrix have already signed up and will of course be participating in the conference this year, as well as hundreds of other companies.

We encourage companies to exhibit and participate that compete with us in one fashion, but complement us in others. It’s all about customers and community!”

VMware’s response has triggered a new post on brianmadden.com, which offers a passable explanation about how this type of mix up occurred. From Brian’s update:

“At the last VMworld, some sponsors / exhibitors specifically trashed their competition and trashed VMware. VMware wanted to prevent that from happening
again this year, but they didn’t have any text in their sponsor agreement that would let them enforce that. So they looked at the sponsor agreements from other
industry events (like TechEd) and added the language that we referenced yesterday.

So the facts are:

  1. YES, that anti-competitive text was added to the agreement and was NOT in there last year.
  2. It was more of a legalese change, and not a change of policy for VMworld or what VMware wants the event to be.”

updated 05.28.09 – Hany Michael suggests that Madden may have manipulated the v12n blogisphere in an attempt to generate some publicity for his own BriForum conference. Check out the post SCREW
YOU Brian Madden…you are not the hero in this story.

Related Posts

PostCategoryIcon Posted in vmetc.com, vmworld | PostTagIcon Tags: , ,
«
»
  • I agree with the extreme example you provided above. It would be fine if that's exactly how it was worded, but it's not, it's very vague. With the current language Veeam may only be allowed to show the nworks products (maybe Monitor). All other products have a competing component from VMware. The only difference is that we didn't create products to compete with VMware, they created products to compete with us. Does that give us a legal loop-hole?

    I completely understand the "intent" of the wording and I know all the arguments including yours Rich. I honestly don't think Veeam will be asked NOT to show Backup, Configurator, Reporter, Monitor, etc - but we COULD be asked not to...
  • Doug,

    Thanks for the vendor perspective. I understand the possibilities
    Veeam and any other v12n vendor faces with VMware's new legal safety
    net, but after all the sensationalism yesterday (yes, vmetc helped
    spread that too, unfortunately) I'll take VMware for their word
    (through Brian Madden) based on the policy of past VMworlds. If they
    had real intent to ban (I have my doubts now) then the community
    reaction hopefully slapped some sense back in them.

    Your point about VMware adding features that compete with the
    ecosystem of vendors is a great one. VMware has obviously put
    themselves in a position that has vendors, partners, and customers on
    edge about the changes.
  • Dracolith
    And at the end of the day they've still changed their sponsorship agreement..

    VMware's linked clarification doesn't make a reversal of the change that "Sponsors and exhibitors must market or demonstrate products on the exhibition floor and in the sessions which are complementary to VMware products and technologies."

    Their clarification says "We encourage companies to exhibit and participate that compete with us in one fashion, but complement us in others. It’s all about customers and community!"

    So where would this leave exhibitors who only make products that compete?

    The vagueness and ambiguousness of the clarification really just makes me go "hmmmm...." even more, as it leaves open questions.
  • I do believe VMware should have the legal backing to restrict negative, suspect activities. Imagine this scenario. Your company signs up as an exhibitor at VMworld and as a sponsor. You've spent some serious $. Your strategy at the event from day 1 is to not only proclaim that you have a better hypervisor then VMware, but also to openly trash VMware in the media, on the exhibit floor, and at the surrounding conference events. VMware kicks you out of VMworld on the first day of the conference. You want your money back and want to sue.

    In a way it is a testimony to VMware's open policy for this event that they did not already include such verbiage in the contract. It's a shame that the competition has used VMware's invitation to participate as a platform for trashing in the past. Afterall, it's VMware's party.
  • Dracolith
    Based on VMware's past promise that VMworld would basically be THE virtualization conference, they shouldn't care all that much, it really just showed the childishness of who they're up against and makes VMware look even better..

    The attendees of VMworld should know who MS is and why they're not an objective, reliable voice in trying to say anything about VMware or Hyper-V.
    But yes, MS deserve to get slapped.

    They could have just imposed special sanctions against MS, before allowing them to sign up...

    The anti-competitive clause doesn't say "you can't trash VMware"; in theory, a competitor could still trash VMware as long as they don't mention a competing product....

    There are other simple precise ways to ban trashing than to simply say no competing products may be exhibited.

    For instance, they can ban the practice of handing out any sort of materials without materials being approved by whoever's running the specific events.

    No handing out leaflets or other items at meetings or in places other than your conference booth.

    No discouraging the purchase of any VMware product.

    It's pretty simple to impose a no-trashing policy.
    I suspect either they didn't think about it too much, or they were trying to do a little more.
  • Dracolith,

    I feel that using legalese for all exhibitors and sponsors is actually
    an easier approach for VMware and all when you consider the staff and
    logistics required to approve hand out materials, t-shirts, booth
    marketing, events, etc. Besides, VMware is also saying we trust all
    our partners and exhibitors that way. Can you imagine the bad PR MS
    would generate if VMware put special terms on just their contract at
    VMworld?

    Honestly, my take is that VMware is not trying to change anything
    about VMworld for the competition, but they do want to be in a better
    contractual scenario for any trashing. Of course VMware ultimately
    deems what is trashing, but like I said to Doug, it's their party.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Support VM /ETC
Support VMETC.com

Support VMETC.com

Free Business and Tech Magazines and eBooks
@rbrambley tweets
Facebook
VMETC
VMETC
Promote Your Page Too
VMTN Roundtable Podcasts
Subscribe



Add to Google Reader or Homepage
Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Add to netvibes
Add to Plusmo

License
Creative Commons License
www.vmetc.com by Richard Brambley is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Trademarks | Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2009 VM /ETC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by WordPress and WordPress Theme created with Artisteer.