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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…