August 17, 2007 9:26 AM PDT

Week in review: A virtual gold mine

While the rest of the stock market was taking a wild roller-coaster ride this week, a tech public offering got a warm welcome from investors.

Investors in VMware's initial public offering got a rocket ride as the highly anticipated IPO launched out of the gate with an initial trade of $52 a share. VMware investors who snapped up shares at $29 a pop as part of the IPO offering reaped a profit of 79 percent on that first trade.

VMware's stellar stock offering shows that virtual machines are starting to add up to real dollars. Virtual machines, the technology that VMware helped pioneer, allow one computer to act as many, whether it's a Mac running Windows and the Mac operating system at the same time or a massive server running multiple instances of Windows and Linux simultaneously. Once a niche technology, virtualization is expanding rapidly as businesses try to get more bang for their server buck.

Both open-source rivals and commercial software makers see a chance to win business customers by offering similar features to VMware, but at a far lower price.

One day after the spectacular public offering of virtualization company VMware, Citrix Systems said that it intends to acquire open-source virtualization company XenSource for about $500 million. Citrix makes so-called thin client software that delivers business applications from servers to desktop computers.

By acquiring XenSource, the company intends to move into the adjacent server and desktop virtualization market. The company's open-source "hypervisor" software, called Xen, lets a single computer run multiple operating systems simultaneously, which is a useful way to replace servers with one, more efficiently used computer.

Tech in court
A federal appeals court appeared unwilling to end a pair of lawsuits that claim the Bush administration engaged in widespread illegal surveillance of Americans. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly pressed Gregory Garre, the Bush administration's deputy solicitor general, to justify his requests to toss out the suits on grounds they could endanger national security by possibly revealing "state secrets."

At the heart of both cases is the U.S. Justice Department's argument that any lawsuit claiming illegal activity on behalf of AT&T and the National Security Agency--even if the eavesdropping is known to have taken place--cannot proceed because it could let enemies and terrorists know how the government's surveillance apparatus works. While no decision was announced Wednesday, and a final ruling might not be reached for months, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit pressed prosecutors to justify asking that the case be dismissed based on declarations submitted by senior Bush administration officials.

In another spying case, three CNET News.com reporters sued computer maker Hewlett-Packard, alleging that its investigation tactics amounted to an invasion of privacy and a violation of state rules on business practices. Complaints were filed on behalf of reporters Dawn Kawamoto, Stephen Shankland and Tom Krazit in California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. Kawamoto's husband, plus Shankland's wife and parents also filed their own suits Wednesday, according to court documents. All seek unspecified damages.

The suits come nearly a year after HP's investigation methods came under scrutiny from law enforcement officials and the federal government. The company acknowledged in September that investigators it hired spied on the three News.com reporters, as well as on journalists from BusinessWeek, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Associated Press. The covert operation was an attempt to expose a media leak from the company's board.

CONTINUED: Access for all…
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
VMware, IPO, virtualization, Stephen Shankland, XenSource Inc.

1 comment

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
News.com reporters suing?
Why can't they just move on? Why do they need financial compensation? Was something taken from them? They still have their jobs dont they? Does news.com not pay its employees enough or is the employer just using this as a reason to get its name in the media more? One might claim their names were tarnished, but lets be honest. How many readers actually make not of who wrote the articles they are reading anyway?

KieranMullen
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://360oregon.com" target="_newWindow">http://360oregon.com</a>
Posted by kieranmullen (1070 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.