Whose Principles Are They?

That's the question to ask following this morning's announcement about Microsoft's so-called new "interoperability principles."

For quick clarification: The principles aren't really new—the European Union's Competition Commission required the principles' framework, in response to Microsoft's March 2004 adverse antitrust ruling. The timing also is suspicious, given the potential public relations bang Microsoft could get about a week before a key vote will determine whether or not ISO adopts OOXML (Open Office XML) as a standard.

I don't mean to sound like my Linux-Watch colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, but sometimes we are in agreement about Microsoft business and PR tactics. Break out the champagne ... this is one of those rare occasions.

What's Old Isn't New Again
To be absolutely clear: The announcement about Microsoft's so-called new interoperability push is a public relations ploy, since the company touts as a customer benefit something required by European trustbusters. Microsoft took three years to finally—and quite unwillingly—comply with EU interoperability rules.

Something else: Last month, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly added two extra years to Microsoft's antitrust oversight because of problems with Microsoft interoperability compliance. Microsoft hasn't exactly rushed to willingly embrace real interoperability principles.

For all of today's talk about interoperability, Microsoft's walk is forced. The company is opening up mainly where trustbusters have demanded release of server protocols and APIs. Absolutely, there is Microsoft customer and partner benefit. But Microsoft's "interoperability principles" are forced concessions. Microsoft isn't changing its colors here. What's that saying about zebras and their stripes?

But the interoperability principles aren't wholly mandated by U.S. and European trustbusters. Microsoft also is responding to Google and other Web 2.0 platform providers.

During a conference call this morning, in response to a question, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer aptly described the competitive challenge ahead for Microsoft, with respect to the Web 2.0 platform. In the past, the real customer value was "what came on the box," he said. But in the era of connected communications, more important is, "What people do on the other end of the wire." His response shows Microsoft's competitive concerns about the Web 2.0 platform.

A Shocking Admission
During this morning's conference, Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's chief software architect, said the information disclosure would be for Office and Windows.

Microsoft positions both products as development platforms. Microsoft wants to encourage robust, third-party development for its core platforms. But the Web 2.0 platform has been drawing away developer interest. The decade of exciting new products on Windows has given way to exciting new products/services on the Web—delivered from the server cloud.

Where not mandated by trustbusters, the additional information disclosure is more self-serving. Microsoft is the main benefactor of increased information disclosure.

Ozzie said that the information disclosure demonstrates "our commitment to an open and level playing field." I find the statement hugely perplexing. How is that commitment defined? Microsoft will disclose Office and Windows information that is available to the company's other product groups. So, interoperability—a "level playing field"—means that third-party developers will get the same information access that Microsoft developers already have.

What the hell? Ozzie's statement means one of two things, and neither reflects well on Microsoft's interoperability commitment. Either the information was already available or it wasn't. If it already was available, then there is nothing new here and Microsoft is blowing PR smoke.

If the information wasn't already available, then Microsoft is conceding that U.S. and European trustbusters were right all along—that the playing field wasn't level, that Microsoft developers had access to information not available to third parties.

Ozzie insisted that the interoperability changes would "enable real-world interoperability" among Office and Windows with third-party products. He emphasized changes coming to Office would foster file format interoperability. That's a hollow and conveniently timed promise, just a week away from an important ISO vote Microsoft could lose. But Microsoft's stated commitment could easily sway some voters.

Microsoft is opening up APIs, disclosing more information, in a way that better ensures third-party interoperability with Microsoft products or services. The semantics here are important. I define interoperability as allowing communication or cooperation among stuff. That's not Microsoft's definition. The company typically defines interoperability as making it easier for other people's stuff to work with Microsoft products or services. Interoperability is more of a one-way street, by Microsoft's typical definition.

I heard nothing this morning that suggests Microsoft has dramatically changed its interoperability definition. The major benefactor of the interoperability changes is Microsoft.

Devil in the Details
Today, Microsoft published 30,000 pages of documents, seemingly showing its increased interoperability commitment. But the documentation is stuff already released for antitrust compliance reasons. What's changed is the fee structure.

During this morning's conference call, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said that developers wouldn't pay for the documentation or for a patent license for "non-commercial" purposes. He specifically said that open-source companies would have to pay for patent licenses when products are commercially released.

Smith made Microsoft's patent position absolutely clear: Open-source developers would need to engage in similar interoperability agreements like the one with Novell. As Smith explained the fees, Ballmer butted in and insisted that the patent license would be "available for the right fee." He then digressed into a speech about the value of Microsoft intellectual property and the need to protect it. The fees will be the devil in the details.

Microsoft also plans to publish Office information, by the end of June. The Office API and other information would be new and something not required by either U.S. or European trustbusters.

I see the disclosure as more a defensive move than one showing that Microsoft has changed its interoperability ways. For starters, there is the aforementioned competitive Web 2.0 platform threat. Microsoft wants business information, collaboration and processes to occur around products like Exchange, Office and SharePoint Server rather than move to the Web 2.0 platform server cloud.

Additionally, Microsoft has in the European Competition Commission a new taskmaster. It's better that Microsoft disclose more information now, proactively and willingly, rather than being required to by terms set by the European Commission. Office has yet to come under serious antitrust investigation. But the EU has started looking more closely at Office.

In September, I identified the customer and partner benefits that would come from Microsoft's forced interoperability compliance, following its failed EU antitrust case appeal.

I see little in today's announcements that extends those benefits. If anything, depending on Microsoft's patent fee structure, particularly for open-source commercial developers, the interoperability principles could muddy some of those benefits.