Microsoft's Linspiration
|
Today's Microsoft-Linspire licensing deal is part of an ongoing trend, with Microsoft making patent agreements that in some way touch open source. Why? |
Other recent deals include Fuji Xerox, JBoss, Samsung, Xandros, XenSource and Zend, and they all share some aspect of open source in common.
As I've expressed in previous posts, Microsoft is a very legalistic company. Chairman Bill Gates is the son of a lawyer, and the company's entire business is built around intellectual property licensing. Intellectual property is very important to Microsoft, as is the proper licensing of it.
The General Public License, particularly tentative revision GPLv3, is very scarry for Microsoft, as it seeks to find intellectual property and patent certainty. Microsoft sees huge value in its intellectual property, which it wants to protect. At the same time, because of Microsoft's dominance, cash horde and broad product portolio, the company is a huge target for patent litigation.
While Microsoft has other reasons for cutting these deals—and I've blogged about this—there are two others important to the company, from an intellectual property perspective: creating intellectual property and patent clarity; and establishing a buffer to deter spurious patent lawsuits. Microsoft is much more likely to be sued than to sue.
Unrelated to licensing is another consideration, which Microsoft states but pundits and bloggers often dismiss: interoperability. Microsoft is the new IBM. Company profits come mostly from large businesses that also already have made heavy investments in Microsoft technology. They aren't new customers but ones Microsoft needs to sell to again. Microsoft has to be very tuned to what customers want.
In every enterprise survey I conducted when working as an analyst, IT managers listed interoperability as their top priority. Period. More than security, more than anything else. They want their Microsoft stuff to work with their other stuff. As such, Microsoft is putting increasing emphasis on interoperability.
Last year, Microsoft created an interoperability council and put in internal and external processes for increasing interoperability among its and third-party products. These patent deals are as much about interoperability as anything else. The starting point for interoperability is increased clarity around intellectual property and patents.
Microsoft's extension of patent litigation protection to developers like Linspire, Novell or Xandros also is about self-protection and the protection of customers. Microsoft wants its customers, many of whom also use open-source software, to upgrade to newer versions of Microsoft software. Intellectual property clarity, patent protection and improved interoperability are means by which Microsoft can inspire customers to have their open-source software and newer Microsoft products, too. Microsoft also is conceding that open source will have a place in the enterprise. Linux isn't going away.
Too often the allure of open source and open standards is one altruism. That somehow the world will be better because of community participation. Hogwash. The biggest proponents of open source and open standards are commercial developers. Their goal is to make money, just like Microsoft.
Yesterday, I met with Tom Robertson, Microsoft's general manager for corporate interoperability and standards. He had come to Washington to meet with folks on Capitol Hill. Topic: interoperability.
We got to talking about the standards approval process, which Microsoft is undergoing for OOXML (Office Open XML) formats. He reminded me that the major participants in any standards process are commercial operations.
"This is not public service," Robertson said of standards processes.
He's absolutely right. I'll go further and say the same for open source. It's not public service but another way of doing business.
Related:
- Linspire Signs Patent, Technical Agreement with Microsoft, eWeek, June 14, 2007
- Linspire, Microsoft in Linux-related deal, Linux-Watch, June 13, 2007
- What's Behind All These Patent Agreements?, Microsoft Watch, June 7, 2007
- The Patent Puzzle, eWEEK, June 5, 2007
- Microsoft-Xandros Patent Pact Deja Vu, eWEEK, June 5, 2007
- Microsoft Gives Xandros Linux Users Patent Protection, eWEEK, June 4, 2007
- Shuttleworth: Microsoft, Patents and Ubuntu, Microsoft Watch, May 21, 2007
- Microsoft's Open Letter to Open Source, Microsoft Watch, May 14, 2007
- Microsoft Reignites Its War on Linux, Linux-Watch, May 14, 2007
- Open Source: Microsoft's Patent FUD Campaign, Microsoft Watch, May 13, 2007
- Show Us the Code: Right Pew, Wrong Church, Linux-Watch, Feb. 25, 2007
- Patent Fallout Continues over Microsoft-Novell Deal, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 21, 2006
- Ballmer: Pay You, Pay Me, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 17, 2006
- Hell Freezes Over: Microsoft, Novell Partner on Linux, Linux Watch, Nov. 2, 2006
Comments (6)
Joe, again I want to say this recent activity by Microsoft has much to do with their VCSY involvement. To learn what i'm talking about go to
http://ajaxamine.tripod.com/
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/
Posted by Dan Broder | June 14, 2007 2:38 PM
Joe, again I want to say this recent activity by Microsoft has much to do with their VCSY involvement. To learn what i'm talking about go to
http://ajaxamine.tripod.com/
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/
Posted by B Broder | June 14, 2007 2:40 PM
I fully agree with you about the interoperability importance in the linux deals Microsoft is making. The latest changes and announcements made for System Center in TechEd 2007 all point towards Microsoft preparing something big for heterogeneous environments. It's no secret that Microsoft is still a newcomer in the IT Management field, however, the speed at which Microsoft is moving in this field and the technology it is creating, could very well level it to current big players (like HP OpenView or IBM Tivoli) in a not too distant future. I am guessing that in order to produce the technology it needs to manage heterogeneous environments, it will need a very good legal framework, so maybe a technical reason might (for a change ;) be one of the important reasons why Microsoft does something (in this case).
Posted by Bernardo Sanchez | June 14, 2007 5:08 PM
In all competition or war there is advance and retreat ,attack and counter-attack, trying to get advantage over foes, and people in general could have problems understanding it. (War strategy)
But, is this occurring on Xandros and Linspire? are there those Distros trying to take advantage of the weak flanks of MS's agreement? I think so. But they'd get their objective without hurting neither themselves nor linux? I have doubts about it, MS's lawyers have the expertise advantage. I think that both distros will get a Pyhrric victory, but I think they have not excessive hopes of accomplishing more either (but I hope to be wrong and that all of Linux (all Distros) have a common strategy).
To make bussines isn't bad, but vice verse- whilst we don't discover the matter duplicator, it will continue being our way of life. Businesses its bad only when it is done in the way that MS do it.
Posted by Marco | June 15, 2007 1:00 PM
Funny - I have to admit that, when I first read the blog post, I thought it was meant ironic. Until I found out that you really mean what you write.
So I'd like to raise some questions about your statements:
You write that interoperability is important - I agree here, who wouldn't? But you also state the interoperability is important for Microsoft. And that's where I disagree. Microsoft always tried to prevent any software vendor to release a product which could possibly take away market share. This means that for example every Office suite was battled with all power available - while other applications which wanted to export data to MS Office but where not related otherwise with Office applications were allowed.
The examples are at the hand: OOXML was introduced after (!) Microsoft realized that more and more states wanted open standards and where looking for ODF. First Microsoft batteld ODF with all power available, but realized that it was to late - and afterwards introduced OOXML. Simply because it was the last possibility. They were forced, not asked!
Another example are the closed SMB/CIFS extensions. SMB/CIFS was a standard created and extended by several companies. But only one single company kept the extensions closed (yes, you guess right, Microsoft). Opening these extensions would mean making SMB/CIFS an open standard again. Instead, Microsoft kepts it close as long as possible. Although *many* Microsoft customers ask to open it, to work together with the Samba guys (which is the second most important implementation of the standard). But they do not, and they will not afaik. Where is the interoperability in that?
Yet another example: When Janus was introduced it was explicitly stated that Janus devices where not allowed to play Ogg Vorbis. Where is the interoperability in that?
The other point you raise is that Microsoft is "creating [...] patent clarity". How can you talk about patent clarity when it is unknown which patents are touched and which not?
Instead of creating patent clarity Microsoft only states that patents are violated, but never which. Interesting here: while the deal with Linspire/Xandros where one-side patent wise the deal with Novell was not: Novell had quite some patents which Microsoft wanted to use as well. But even in this case Microsoft never said which patents are touched. There is no clarity at all - as a Microsoft customer you have no idea if you are saved or not. All you know is simply that Novell will not sue you, which is not that interesting given that Novell is not a patent troll.
Btw., a patent troll is sometimes defined by simply threatening other companies with patents without specifying the touched patents - Microsoft, behaving like this, makes it a patent troll as well (at least according to that definition). Strange world.
Posted by Notthistime | June 17, 2007 8:38 AM
Don't get sucked into MS way of thinking Joe.
When MS talks DRM (Digital Rights Management), they are not talking about the "rights" of the end users, rather the Hollywood Media companies.
When MS is talking interoperability with other operating systems, specifically Linux here, they are not talking about making Windows play nice with Linux. They are talking patent infringement here. Its the big club deal here. Look at the Linspire deal and you see media player 10 codecs and ms true type fonts as the main two interoperability items offered by MS. Now there are already ways to use these items (post-install) on linux systems, at least the fonts and media player 9 codexs which are the real ones anyway. The codexs will let you play wma and wmv files in linux, which are a prioratory MS format, probabily based on and stolen from mp3, if the code is ever revealed. And it would be if it went to court.
All these audio, video, and doc formats files, are a way to stop revial operating systems and provide lock in. They provide nothing to the end user in innovation, with the possible exception of MP3's which saved space. In fact these special formats should never be allowed to have a patent. There will come a day when the governments of the world awake to the fact that the files (such as these) that we use to communicate with, should all be based on an open format, freely available to any OS to use, which thereby includes the end user.
Posted by chips b malroy | June 17, 2007 3:21 PM