- Open community and closed-source vendors
- Microsoft at EclipseCON
- Reply to My Microsoft Freetard post
- Microsoft will prevail in the face of "freetards"
- EU fines Microsoft $1.3 billion
- Microsoft to Yahoo: We have R&D synergies
- Compete solely on price? No thanks.
- Save XP?
- I think Microsoft has an OSS Strategy
- Microsoft Oslo: Lacking Interoperability?
March 20, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Open community and closed-source vendors
InfoWorld blogger Sean McCown at Database Underground wrote about a key difference between SQL Server & Oracle:
"The answer is simple... information. Microsoft has built such a strong community and its members are committed to helping each other. There are so many forums out there you just don't have time to go to them all. And one of the most amazing things I've found is that the MSDN forums are actually sharked by Microsoft's own PSS and dev teams. You just can't get any better than that. You've got both the guys on the support team, and the guys who actually write the code helping you with your problem. You've got MVPs out there writing new and exciting books like crazy. They're really giving up all the secrets on how SQL works, and what you can do with it.Oracle is still living in the old days where everything is a good ole boys club. This is the world of Linux and Unix where they started, and it's a dinosaur, man. You just can't afford to do business like that anymore. You have to open up your community and start programs to encourage your best people to help and teach."
Sean's description of the community around SQL Server and the level of Microsoft employee interaction in the community should sound similar to the community around MySQL. It's not exactly the same, but similar. I'd like to believe that MSDN became what it is today because Microsoft learned about the importance of community from OSS vendors. However, when something is a good idea, it's not uncommon for several people/companies to have the same "good idea".
Stating that community matters today is as insightful as saying air matters to humans. Yet, it appears the folks at Oracle could learn a thing or two about Community from Microsoft. And they could both learn a thing or two from OSS vendors.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on March 20, 2008 10:08 AM
March 19, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Sam Ramji was the keynote this morning. Taking the cue from yesterday's keynote, Fake Steve Jobs, Sam announced that Microsoft was acquiring the Eclipse Foundation. This was obviously a joke! Sam went on to explain the work that his team has been doing around OSS. You can read the highlights on Sam's blog entry here. I'll mention three things that stood out for me.
First, Sam plainly stated that a few years ago you could accuse Microsoft of "missing the OSS boat". But since 2005, the Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft has been helping the rest of Microsoft realize the importance of OSS. According to Sam, it hasn't been easy, they could do more, and the job is nowhere close to being done. They're just 3 years into a 10 year journey in reorienting Microsoft's internal and external views on OSS.
Second, the majority of folks in the room (>1,000 people?) didn't know much about Microsoft's work with OSS. Now let's be fair, Microsoft hasn't done as much for/with OSS as other large software/IT vendors (IBM, HP, Intel, Red Hat, Oracle, Sun, etc). But for so many OSS proponents in the room to not know that, for example, Microsoft had 2 OSI approved licenses was somewhat surprising to me. I believe that the OSS community is doing itself a disservice if we actively choose to ignore what Microsoft is doing, because, well, they're Microsoft. Let me be clear. Microsoft doesn't love OSS. But don't let that trick you into thinking that Microsoft won't figure out how to leverage the momentum of OSS to continue its own revenue growth. (Let's be honest, you could insert any successful software company's name for "Microsoft" in the above two sentences.)
Third, Sam was asked the size of his budget for the Open Source Software Lab (considering that Microsoft's revenue $50B). Sam explained that the budget was ~$5M, but that his group could influence the work of other teams at Microsoft. For example, the folks at Mozilla contacted Sam's team to ask why the Windows Media Player 11 (WMP) user experience in Firefox on Vista sucked vs. WMP in IE on Vista. Sam's team reached out to the WMP team and put them in contact with the Mozilla guys. The WMP team addressed the issue and it didn't cost the Microsoft OSS Lab a dime. Sam made another key point about the lab's budget. The only way that the lab's budget is going to increase is if developers, partners and users tell Microsoft that the work that his lab is doing is valuable. So, in a way, if you want Microsoft to do more with OSS, it's up to you to pat them on the back for the steps they’re taking. ;-)
It'll be interesting to see what Microsoft does next with OSS. Rest assured they're not ignoring OSS anymore....which is exciting and scary at the same time if you're an OSS proponent.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on March 19, 2008 04:02 PM
March 10, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Reply to My Microsoft Freetard post
Apologies for not writing this earlier, but I've just had a horrible few weeks of school & work, with a week of 14hr days in a classroom to boot.
I wanted to follow up on the post because most of the comments I received were of the "you're crazy, Microsoft sucks, you suck" fashion.
Well, I have been known to be wrong, and sometimes my ideas have been crazy, and Microsoft has been known to suck. But, does any of this change what we're seeing in the market?
According to IDC data from Dec. 2007:
- The Linux OS market growth rate is slowing from ~22% in 2007 to ~16% in 2011
- The Windows OS market growth rate is slowing from ~11% in 2007 to ~9% in 2011
- The Unix OS market growth rate is slowing from ~ NEGATIVE 7% in 2007 to ~ NEGATIVE 6% in 2011
- The 2006-2011 CAGRs for Linux, Windows and UNIX are 20%, -5% and 9% respectively
- IDC expects the Linux OS market to be worth $0.967B by 2011, compared to $22.7B for Windows and $1.9B for UNIX
- From 2006 to 2011, Linux, Windows and UNIX operating system revenue will grow by $0.57B, $7.7B and -$0.51B respectively (note how the Linux & UNIX revenue shift balance each other out)
- If the Windows OS market grew to 2011 and then remained flat (i.e. 0% growth), it would take Linux until 2029 to grow to the size of the Windows market. Lots of things can happen in the next 20+ years.
Now I know that OSS is larger than Linux OS. However, we simply have the most revenue data on the Linux OS market, which is why I use it in this post.
Roy S., I don't want you or any of our readers to leave. Let me ask you what value you get out of this or any other blog if all you read is what you believe to be true? I have never said I am always right. I am willing to learn and change any of my views. I've always believed that the way to deal with adversity is to be honest with yourself about the situation. I don't think that the OSS community is being honest with itself. (This is a personal view, and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).
It gives me no joy to be (one of) the messengers behind the news that OSS is great, but it's not going to kill Microsoft or other large commercial software vendors. I know this is at odds with the often repeated view that OSS is the only path forward. There is simply no data that supports this claim. Yet, OSS luminaries are lauded for repeating this claim.
Just imagine if we agreed that OSS isn't the spark that destroys and re-casts the software landscape as we know it. Would this change how OSS vendors look at their competitive differences, revenue goals and customers vs. users? I suspect yes. By simply repeating the claims that OSS will take over the world, are we doing anyone any good?
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on March 10, 2008 04:14 PM
February 28, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft will prevail in the face of "freetards"
An aspect of the open source software nirvana has been the end of Microsoft's dominance. Well, anyone who sees Linux, OpenOffice or another OSS project/product as the death nail in Microsoft's coffin is not living in reality. It pains me to say this; it really does.
When you see Microsoft borrowing ideas from the OSS movement, it's probably best stop smelling the roses and pay attention. For instance, Microsoft's Sam Ramji has an interesting post on how OSS has influenced Windows Server 2008. Six areas Microsoft has learned from include:
- Modular architectures
- Programming language agnostic
- Feedback-driven development
- Built-for-purpose systems
- Sys admins who write code
- Standards-based communication
Sam writes:
"Overall, we've learned and continue to learn from open source development principles. These are making their way into the mindset, development practices, and ultimately into the products we bring to market. As all of the different organizations in IT continue to evolve, we'll learn from each others' best practices and make increasingly better software. As in science, this incremental improvement will move all of us forward."
InfoWorld's product review of Windows Server 2008 scored it an 8.5/10 and described it as an essential upgrade:
"Microsoft's slimmer and stronger server OS, bolstered by virtualization, networking, and security advances, is an upgrade that IT can't refuse, a 200-pound gorilla that eats commercial Linux"
Throw eggs at me if you like. But this should scare any OSS proponent. It seems like the folks at Redmond have been busy while the OSS movement has been prematurely readying Microsoft's eulogy.
I hope I'm wrong. But Microsoft simply appears to be meeting the challenge of OSS better than OSS appears to be meeting the challenge of displacing Microsoft.
PS: The term "freetards" used with attribution to FSJ.
PPS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on February 28, 2008 09:01 PM
February 27, 2008 | Comments: (0)
EU fines Microsoft $1.3 billion
Following on last week's announcement from Microsoft to be more interoperable and open, the EU has now fined Microsoft a cool $1.3 billion for failing to comply with a 2004 ruling. This brings the total fines the EU has levied on Microsoft to around $2.5 billion. This is the first fine in 50 years that the EU has imposed for a company because of a failure to comply with an anti-trust decision.
In reference to Microsoft's recent interoperability announcements, the EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes said
"We don’t want talk, we want compliance. If you cheat the rules, you will be caught.”
Ouch.
To most companies, a billion dollar fine would be enormous. To Microsoft, I'm not sure this has been an effective measure to get compliance. (Or at least, it seems not to have influenced their actions greatly.) But I wonder how customers in Europe feel about Microsoft's reputation. This can only hurt. And that impact could be far larger than the billions in fines.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on February 27, 2008 11:55 AM
February 01, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft to Yahoo: We have R&D synergies
You've all read about the proposed deal. The National Post has a copy of the letter that Ballmer et al sent to the Yahoo board. Here are two paragraphs I found interesting:
1] Ballmer reminds Yahoo that he/Microsoft was right all along (emphasis added)
"In February 2007, I received a letter from your Chairman indicating the view of the Yahoo! Board that “now is not the right time from the perspective of our shareholders to enter into discussions regarding an acquisition transaction.” According to that letter, the principal reason for this view was the Yahoo! Board’s confidence in the “potential upside” if management successfully executed on a reformulated strategy based on certain operational initiatives, such as Project Panama, and a significant organizational realignment. A year has gone by, and the competitive situation has not improved."
2] Ballmer discuses 1 of 4 areas for synergies. Very cool/interesting that R&D made the list. It'll be interesting to see what Microsoft does with Yahoo's PHP investments. Because, at the end of the day, every time someone new uses PHP, a VB angel loses his/her wings. What will happen to Yahoo's broader OSS use in running its business?:
"Expanded R&D capacity: The combined talent of our engineering resources can be focused on R&D priorities such as a single search index and single advertising platform. Together we can unleash new levels of innovation, delivering enhanced user experiences, breakthroughs in search, and new advertising platform capabilities. Many of these breakthroughs are a function of an engineering scale that today neither of our companies has on its own."
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on February 1, 2008 06:47 AM
January 23, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Compete solely on price? No thanks.
A while ago Roy Russo had made a comment to the effect: "OSS needs to stop competing on price". Regardless what you read about him on the Interweb, I say, he's a smart guy! ;-)
I've never really looked at the price of Windows vs. RHEL or Ubuntu. The simple answer is that CentOS/Fedora (near RHEL replacements) and Ubuntu are free without commercial support, so end of discussion.
But, if you want commercial support and consider a typical Windows replacement cycle (~5 years), it seems that Windows is actually cheaper than purchasing RHEL+support or support for Ubuntu.
I'm quite happy to see this. Price isn't a long term differentiator. Easier to use, faster, more secure, more reliable, etc. can be long term differentiators....price, not so much.
Take a look:
Here's what I did:
The current Vista Ultimate price is $399, the upgrade price is $199. I used $399 in year 1 and $199 in year 6. This assumes you buy Vista today, run it for 5 years and then upgrade to the next version of Windows in year 6. You can pay $59/incident for commercial support from Microsoft. I assumed one would need no more than 2 support calls a year (I haven't ever called MSFT in 20+ years for support). BTW, apparently you get 2 installation related support incidents for free with a Windows license. {Update} Mr. Russo pointed out that I missed the cost of an Advanced Support Incident. If you assume that a customer has 2 of these in a 6 year term, and when they do, the incremental cost is only $200, then Windows is still cheaper by ~$30 (ignoring discounts, hardware costs, other software costs, etc).
The current Ubuntu support price from Canonical for 9x5 phone support is $250. I could have used $900 for the 24x7 support, but that seemed excessive.
The current RHEL "Workstation with Standard Subscription" price for 12x5 phone support is $299.
Note that Canonical and Red Hat offer unlimited incidents, while I only assumed 2 incidents per year with Microsoft. This may be a bad assumption. But seriously, I can't remember anyone I know actually calling Microsoft for OS support.
This 'analysis' is not a statement about total cost of ownership. It's just simple math, and I thought you may find it interesting. OSS doesn't have to compete on price...let's move past that myth.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on January 23, 2008 05:00 PM
January 23, 2008 | Comments: (0)
I stumbled across a "Save XP" petition that InfoWorld is hosting:
"Microsoft will end OEM and shrink-wrapped sales of Windows XP on June 30, 2008, forcing users to shift to Vista.....
Millions of us have grown comfortable with XP and don't see a need to change to Vista. It's like having a comfortable apartment that you've enjoyed coming home to for years, only to get an eviction notice. The thought of moving to a new place -- even with the stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, and maple cabinets (or is cherry in this year?) -- just doesn't sit right. Maybe it'll be more modern, but it will also cost more and likely not be as good a fit. And you don't have any other reason to move."
More than 57,000 have signed it. Will you??? ;-)
Maybe more folks would sign a petition titled: "Save XP, Kill Vista" ?
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on January 23, 2008 10:57 AM
November 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)
I think Microsoft has an OSS Strategy
Shaun Connolly from JBoss/Red Hat has a nice summary of Microsoft's Open Source Strategy. In the post, Shaun states:
"As much as I hate to say it, Microsoft could learn something from IBM's strategy. They make no bones about it: they work in the open source on piece-part components that they Bluewash into their closed-source products. While it's not a pure open source business model...it's clearly an open source strategy."
I think Microsoft has an OSS strategy.
It's not the one described in Bill Hiff's recent interview. That's the difference between how you run your business, and what you tell the press and competitors. Call me crazy, but I think that Microsoft's OSS strategy is "Grin and bear it". Okay, get up off the floor...Grin and bear it is a valid strategy if you know "it" isn't going to last forever. Yes, OSS is here to stay, but the competitive differentiation that OSS gives to an OSS vendor isn't infinite. The support-only OSS business model does not scale. I'm made the claim that this differentiation decreases as the OSS vendor starts to grow beyond $250M in annual revenue.
Since I've made this claim twice without Matt, Dave, or JBoss/RH readers calling me out, I'm going to guess that they agree with the claim to some degree. I *think* that Marc Fleury believes the same and said so much on the Open Season podcast. I found this on Fleury's RSS feed (via Google Reader), but it looks like the post itself has been moved?:
"I don't want to come across as the ultimate realist but as far as scalable business models go, we still haven't found anything better than a proprietary distribution of open source software."
Imagine that you are at Microsoft and see the competitive differentiation from OSS waning as the competitor grows closer to $500M. Would you rush out and change the business model that created a $50B company?
"Grin, and bear it": Not just a strategy for Toronto Maple Leaf fans anymore ;-)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on November 26, 2007 04:13 PM
October 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft Oslo: Lacking Interoperability?
First, I'm an IBMer. These are my views. IBM does not necessarily agree with them.
Second, I think most of you will agree that I'm relatively friendly towards Microsoft when they may a positive OSS move. I am not anti-Microsoft just because it's cool to love Apple these days.
With those two items out of the way, I couldn't help but shake my head when reading about Microsoft's Oslo project for "model-centric apps".
An InfoWorld article describes Oslo:
"With Oslo, Microsoft is making investments aligned with a vision to simplify the effort needed to build, deploy, and manage composite applications within and across organizations. The effort builds on model-driven and service-enabled principles and extends SOA beyond the firewall."
Another description comes from Tim Rayburn's blog (via Google):
"Oslo is not a product, but rather an over-arching project which will contain within it updates to many products and services including BizTalk Server, Visual Studio, and more. "
"..extends SOA beyond the firewall"...oh, you mean to companies that aren't Microsoft shops? Great, tell me more! I read and re-read the IW article & Tim's blog to see if there is any mention of non-Microsoft technologies. You know, SOA and especially Composite Applications, are supposed to be about heterogeneous environments. I didn't find a thing that leads me to believe that Oslo has much to do with interoperability. So, "extends SOA beyond the firewall" should really say "extends SOA beyond the firewall from one 100% Microsoft shop to another 100% Microsoft shop"
Next, for those of us who think standards are generally good ideas...IW sets us straight:
"Microsoft's approach is not about Unified Modeling Language (UML), a technology of which Microsoft has not been a big supporter...A modeling language is part of Oslo, but Microsoft is building a modeling language, a set of tools, and a unified repository."
Anywho, it's all vaporware and likely will be well beyond 2010 (Massimo is being overly generous when he suggests 2009):
"It's pretty ambitious, and as a matter of fact, I believe we're not going to see anything concrete until well into 2008 and possibly 2009," said analyst Massimo Pezzini, vice president of the application platform strategies group at Gartner.
Microsoft, open you eyes...your "SOA" customers care about more than .NET and all customers benefit from open standards. This is not a new news.
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on October 30, 2007 10:42 AM
October 23, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft To Slim Down Windows
At an ACM presentation at the University of Illinois last weekend, Microsoft's Eric Traut revealed that its working on slimming down the next major release of Windows by starting from a bare-bones kernel known as "MinWin"and then only adding what's necessary. This is a good strategy for Microsoft. If Microsoft are the last people to admit that Windows has become bloated, at least now they're acting on it. Lets face it, they wouldn't have extended selling Windows XP past the original end of year deadline if Vista was selling that well. But don't expect Microsoft to commercialized MinWin or ship a major new Windows 7 release until 2010 at the soonest. (And in the past I've doubled Microsoft's OS schedules and still been off.)
The only question is if they have 200 people already working on this project, that seems like kind of a big team already. Remember, small teams and all that. You can view Traut's presentation as a WMV file here.
Posted by Zack Urlocker on October 23, 2007 12:30 PM
October 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Future-proofing NetWare with virtualization
Amid what turned out to be a prophetic warning issued by Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and the subsequent but completely unrelated federal lawsuit filed against Novell last week, the Provo, UT, firm quietly pulled NetWare into the present with an option on the future with the release of Novell Open Enterprise Server 2.
Obviously there are many strange coincidences surrounding the Novell (and now Red Hat) lawsuit filed by IP Innovation and Technology Licensing Corporation, some of which point to Novell as a possible accomplice in a larger Microsoft conspiracy to bring down Red Hat specifically and Linux in general. I doubt seriously that Novell's relationship with Microsoft has these aims in mind. Quite the contrary, the company's seemingly unholy alliance with Microsoft aims at self preservation. Novell is behaving just as anyone would when faced with potential demise -- do whatever it takes to continue, to survive. Yes, corporations are nothing other than living organisms that want more than anything to persevere.
And that's just what Novell has done with Open Enterprise Server (OES) 2. This release doesn't make the company's SUSE Linux substantially better; it makes NetWare better. With this release of OES, the NetWare kernel (NetWare 6.5 SP7) still exists as a discrete entity, but now it runs within OES on top of the Xen hypervisor. Actually you can run NetWare 6.5 SP7 on either a physical machine or in a virtual machine, employing Xen virtualization. Either way, it's basically the same network services OS (NetWare) running in a paravirtualized environment, where it recognizes when it's running in one environment or the other.
This is a huge deal for the plethora of Novell shops out there with intractable NetWare Loadable Modules (NLMs) and nervous programmers, who are well versed in NLMs but looking for a way to put their know-how to work in an environment with a future. With OES 2, Novell intends to help its customers preserve their NetWare-centric skills and run NetWare-dependent applications, all while gradually migrating to Linux. Actually, with Novell's paravirtualization approach, you'll still need to plunk down 5 percent "new" code to get your old NLMs to run in OES 2. Still, that's a small price to pay for future-proofing a substantial investment in NetWare.
Interestingly, according to Novell's Jeff Jaffe, this paravirtualization allows chip manufacturers, system builders, and application writers to build these islands in the sky that perform as well as or better than traditionally virtualized counterparts.
By allowing portions of the guest operating system and application to be modified to exploit the new hardware, paravirtualization allows much higher performance than previous approaches.
As hardware and software manufacturers collaborate on advancing hypervisors and with both Novell and Red Hat substantially backing and employing the Xen hypervisor project, it's easy to envision this approach stretching the lifespan of many OSes and the applications built to run on those OSes -- not just NetWare. Maybe someday in the not-too-distant future we'll see OES or Red Hat Enterprise Linux running a paravirtualized rendition of Windows Server 2008 as a means of preserving knowledge invested in legacy .Net applications.
Perhaps this thought was weighing on Mr. Ballmer's mind when he issued his foretelling warning last week.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on October 16, 2007 03:00 AM
October 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Bill Hilf Adds Windows Server Marketing Responsibility
Networkworld is reporting:
"The leader of Microsoft's integration efforts around open source software and its proprietary technologies is expanding his role by adding the title "general manager of Windows server marketing," further indication that Microsoft plans to crank up the volume on its Windows/Linux story....
"This expanded role is a natural evolution of the work Bill has led at Microsoft over the past four years – working together with Microsoft technology-development teams and the open source community to build interoperable solutions on top of the Windows Platform, and continuing the discussion around Linux and Windows," a company representative said."
Anyone know if a GM of marketing trumps a GM of development/engineering at Microsoft? I guess I’m asking if this announcement means that Bill will help drive changes to the Windows server product? Or is he responsible for having fewer "get the facts" marketing campaigns?
In any case, Microsoft continues in their march towards OSS (and maybe acquiring Red Hat, a Nostradamus-ish prediction of mine).
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on October 8, 2007 08:14 PM
October 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Steve Ballmer on Open Source, Online and Other
There is a very interesting video of Steve Ballmer speaking in the UK. As always, entertaining and a little bizarre.
Talking about advertising
"A lot of people don't like to pay for things.""Will online publications be all ad funded? Yes. Traffic is very valuable but not very monetizable...Many things will be ad-funded or not-for-profit."
Any plans to bring development tools to other platforms? No.
Open Source
What's our strategy
A. Compete--we need to offer better value where there is a direct overlap
B. Open Source innovation on Windows--our battle is product to product
Praise for Novell--"Novell says that IP matters, Red Hat doesn't."
Matt covers the OSS stuff here.
Steve Ballmer video - The Online Opportunity
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on October 8, 2007 01:47 PM
October 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)
User Responses to MSFT releasing .NET 3.5 Source
So far the views from Dave, whurley, Matt and others have been negative to handle with caution.
After I heard that Microsoft was releasing the .NET 3.5 source under the Microsoft Research License (i.e. look but don't touch), I tried to find what .NET users were saying. I found Scott Guthrie's blog (of MSFT) and after reading 57 of the 85 comments listed, here's what I found:
49 responded (very) positively to the news
3 responded (very) negatively to the news, specifically because of the MRL
6 were in a language other than English (French, German) or were pingbacks without an opinion
Here are some quotes:
"Fantastic news...next step, user check-ins :-) Kidding, but this is really amazing news!"
"Microsoft is taking one more step to the open community / world."
"This is going to be SO helpful, esp. in WinForms and ASP.NET. I've spent too many hours looking at IL (well, before there were such nice decompilers) trying to figure out things in those frameworks. Thanks!"
It seems that the news is being well received by developers currently in the Microsoft camp. Yes, this is like preaching to the choir, but at least the choir is happy...
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on October 4, 2007 07:28 AM
October 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)
A patent trolling dream--Microsoft lets you look but not touch .NET libraries
Microsoft is releasing its .Net Framework libraries under the Microsoft Reference License, which allows viewing of source code but not modification or redistribution.
Despite my chronic proclamations of conspiracy theories, this whole thing seems like a bad idea.
Basically, you tacitly agree to the license and then get to see the code. What happens when something patented or copyright from the MS frameworks make their way into other products (probably accidentally but a huge amount of software is based on the same design patterns.) Does Microsoft agree to not sue? Nope.
It would seem wise to avoid anything released under this half-baked Microsoft Reference License. Why wouldn't Microsoft want developers to use the libraries anyway? Why not just GPL it? For that matter, why not Apache the libraries.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on October 3, 2007 01:59 PM
September 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Selling your soul is clearly worth the money (Novell)
I am hesitant to even mention Novell at this point but I saw this article "Novell credits Microsoft for soaring Linux sales" wherein Novell gushes about how well they are doing thanks to their satanic pact with Microsoft.
Novell says its Linux business has grown by 243 percent over the last three quarters, and it largely credits its deal with Microsoft.
Of course it credits Microsoft as there is nothing else going on at Novell that would cause anyone to buy their products. What are the odds of this growth continuing after the initial ramp from the certificates hits the wall? Unless Microsoft buys Novell I would bet pretty low.
I am not even interested enough to finish this post. The whole thing is just so lame.
We've already covered this plenty of times for those of you who think I am picking on Novell.
Previous:
The other 20% on Novell or, When interop isn't
Picking apart Novell's Linux numbers (Larry Dignan/ZDNet)
Novell - Microsoft Agreements Revealed
Reading between the lines with Bill Hilf: Microsoft must really be hurting
Ignorance (of open source), thy name is Microsoft
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 29, 2007 03:52 PM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
From the InfoWorld story about Sun OEMing Windows Server with the Sun Fire server line for customers that want to use Windows.
"The Sun Fire servers already support Windows Server, along with Red Hat Linux, Novell's Suse Enterprise Linux, VMware's ESX virtualization system, and Sun's own Solaris operating system, according to Lisa Sieker, vice president of marketing at Sun Systems.Asked if Sun's latest alliance shows its intent to compete more directly with Linux and VMware, Sieker said, "We are responding to strong customer demand for this.... It's a complex marketplace out there.""
So very true, it is a complex marketplace out there. Simplifying the marketplace to "...oss is the right answer in all occasions" really minimizes the prevalence of heterogeneous environments and needs that customers have.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 12, 2007 09:02 PM
September 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
My full "What Microsoft Doesn't Know About SOA" rant on ITBusinessEdge
Apologies to Lorraine for accidentally publishing the questions from my interview before she did--I didn't realize that I had rambled so much that she put it into 2 pieces!
Check out her blog today about Biz Talk Server which makes a good point--whether or not Microsoft has an SOA strategy only half matters right now--they will be an important player regardless.
Lorraine had to split the interview referenced above into two parts. You can read the complete Q&A at:
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=33378 and
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=33486
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 12, 2007 10:42 AM
September 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Using OO.o to Beat MSFT in Other Markets
I just read the JS post about the continuing rise of OpenOffice.org.
Why do vendors like Sun, IBM (officially now), Google, etc. support OO.o? Well, providing customer choice and openness are two of the key reasons quoted. These are definitely great reasons that we all want to see OO.o succeed.
Most vendors backing OO.o compete with Microsoft in markets other than Office Productivity software. So, what about the competitive benefits for vendors supporting OO.o? Let's face it, $1 diverted from MS Office could become $0.70 diverted from the budgets of Microsoft's other business units.
Here's a look at Microsoft's 2006 FY financials by reporting division:
- MS Office is inside of "Information Worker"
- MS Windows Client operating systems are inside of "Client"
- MS Windows Server operating systems are inside of "Server & Tools"
- MS SQL Server is inside of "Server & Tools"
- MS Ad revenue is inside of "MSN"
When you look at the operating margins of Microsoft's business units, it's quite easy to see why attacking MS Windows profits with Linux and MS Office profits with OO.o is the strategy of choice for vendors that compete with MS in other markets.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 11, 2007 06:14 PM
September 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft misses the SOA boat (again)
Microsoft just announced the release of BizTalk Server 2006 R2 (note to Microsoft, it's nearly 2008) which apparently is the cornerstone of their SOA strategy (please insert Nelson Muntz Ha-ha! related to MS and SOA.)
The availability of BizTalk Server 2006 R2 underscores Microsoft's long-term commitment to deliver extensive SOA and BPM capabilities as part of the overall Microsoft application platformFunny thing is I just did a Q&A all about how Microsoft has completely missed the point--and this proves that they continue to. They are just taking advantage of their captive market to convince them that SOA is all about Microsoft platforms and not about architectural advantage.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 11, 2007 08:47 AM
August 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Does the FSF have teeth vs. Microsoft?
Reading Matt's blog today, I found this press release (via Groklaw) from the FSF.
The title says it all: "Microsoft cannot declare itself exempt from the requirements of GPLv3"
We discussed this a little bit on a previous post. I was corrected that the FSF wouldn't lead the legal battle, but that the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) would. If you recall, I'd looked into the finances of both organizations. SFLC had $509k in assets as of 2005, and the FSF had about $892k in assets as of 2006. (Note: the year for the FSF data wasn't completely clear).
In the comments to Roy & others, I'd pointed out that Microsoft is essentially saying GPLv3 does not apply to the deal with Novell and now it's up to the FSF/SFLC to respond.
Today’s press release appears to the part of the reply. Matt suggests that:
"Microsoft is in no position to determine which open-source licenses it respects. If it distributes software under the GPLv3, it is bound to abide by its terms. Period. End of story.I suspect that if Microsoft pushes this issue, it will find a long list of people happy to fund the FSF's lawsuits against Microsoft."
Without any insider knowledge on this topic, I'll predict that there will be few large vendors (with deep pockets) rushing to generously support the FSF/SFLC in this battle versus Microsoft. There may be individuals who donate to such a cause. Current vendor patrons may even donate for the sake of optics. But I find it difficult to believe that large IT vendors will see this as a good investment of their donations.
Do we really believe that Microsoft is going to sue customers using versions of Linux other than SUSE? I don't. Whatever you think about Microsoft, they're not the RIAA. At best, the FSF/SFLC would be able to ensure that Microsoft "truly" / "legally" (whichever you prefer) extends patent protection to any Linux user or customer. If you discount the FUD, aren't we there already since Microsoft isn’t about to sue individuals or customers? At worst, the Microsoft legal team could work to invalidate the GPLv3. I don't want to create FUD here, since the FSF states that the GPL has been tested in a court of law. But don't think that the clever lawyers at Microsoft will lie down and get run over. Whether the Microsoft legal team is successful in their defense or not is a different question.
Yes, I know, it sucks to think of the situation in this way. We'd like to see Microsoft "pay for their treatment of OSS". But when you look at the cost / benefit ratio, I believe it is not in the interest of IT vendors to back the FSF/SFLC in this battle vs. Microsoft.
But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?
UPDATE:
Notes from Ed Burnette's post today re. GPLv3 & Microsoft:
GPLv3 states:
".....unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007."
Ed states:
"So clearly, GPLv3 will have no effect on the MS/Novell agreement, which was completed in 2006."
And:
"My guess is, it’ll never come to that, because both sides would be afraid of losing and setting a precedent."
Score 2 for the non lawyers :-)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on August 28, 2007 12:08 PM
August 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Does Adobe Want to be an Office Productivity Apps vendor?
It is funny how Matt and I can read the same article and come up with different conclusions.
I read this article and thought that Adobe's entry into the Office applications market has little to do with OSS or Open Standards, so no need to blog about it here.
Matt says:
"The only thing better would be if Adobe, Apple, and OpenOffice could get together....In fact, don't you think that it makes a lot of sense for Apple to acquire Adobe, given the similar corporate mentalities/competencies? Me, too.)"
Apple, likely the most closed vendor on the planet is supposed to be the "last great hope against Microsoft's Office franchise"? Maybe Matt is down to half a glass of OSS Kool-aid daily and doesn't care if he's supporting a Traditional or OSS vendor in the "good fight against Microsoft's hegemony".
All kidding aside, I can't wait to see what Adobe has in this market. I am a MS Office user. I tried OpenOffice and even Google Docs, but neither seemed to fit my needs vs. the tradeoffs to switch. I wonder if the problem is that OpenOffice and Google Docs feel like they were designed by developers. On the other hand, Adobe products feel like they were designed by designers. Watching an Adobe AIR demo or app created with AIR most of us think "ooh, ahh" (Note: I hate reading text on most Flash websites - I just needed to say that).
As Cote says in the Wired article:
"It's not a technical question, it's a cultural question,...All the geeks and everyone like myself would love to play around with an Office competitor from Adobe to see what that would be like. But when I talk to normal office workers who use Microsoft Office, they don't get all warm and tingly like I do with the prospect of different office software....People who use Microsoft Office are into using Microsoft Office."
How true.
It'll be interesting to see what Adobe does here. Putting on my strategy hat: Entering the Office Apps market is only a step towards their broader goal to drive extensive adoption of Flex and AIR. So, look for an open API that allows designers/developers/ISVs/customers to extend the Adobe Office suite. By expanding the reach of Flex & AIR, Adobe can sell tools (not just IDEs) to designers & developers that want to create AIR apps. In essence, AIR (and Flash before it) is a runtime environment just like the Java JDK and MS CLR. It just so happens that AIR is for client-side apps (vs. predominately server-side for JDK) that look sweet and deliver ease of use vs. traditional client-side apps (i.e. predominately MS CLR). As this occurs, I suspect that customers and vendors will start looking for a standards body around the AIR runtime technologies. So, maybe there is a Standards tie to this story after all :-)
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on August 14, 2007 01:36 PM
August 08, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Having spent the better part of my career working with products that are based on JEE, I sometimes have to remind myself that .NET is still quite prevalent. You'll find that there are customers who are "JEE shops" or ".NET shops". But a fairly large portion of customers have both JEE & .NET in their IT environments. I saw a Gartner estimate of JEE only/.NET only/ JEE & .NET/Other architectures representing 25%/25%/35%/15% of all customers. Take that "data" with a grain of salt as it's old and based on my fuzzy memory. The larger point is that a significant portion of enterprises have both .NET & JEE.
We could argue about the pros/cons of each architecture, but customers seem to have voted with their wallets and use each as appropriate to address business needs. This statement could equally be applied to the OSS & Traditional software discussion.
I had the opportunity to speak with Jenna Dobkin from Mainsoft last week. (Mainsoft is an IBM business partner). Mainsoft provides .NET to JEE interoperability by allowing .NET apps to be cross compiled to run natively on a JEE runtime. I was intrigued by the technical feat behind Mainsoft's offering. It allows customers with .NET skills and assets to continue benefiting from their previous investments while being able to deploy to JEE platforms. Why JEE? Well, it could be because customers want the performance, reliability, availability, etc. benefits of JEE. Maybe they want to shift towards open standards-based applications. Maybe their end customers are "JEE only" shops. Maybe dropping the "2" from J2EE did the trick!
Jenna put me in contact with two Mainsoft customers to understand why they didn't *just* deploy to .NET or *just* write in JEE. Note the emphasis on my implied simplicity of the word "just".
I spoke with Bart Sijnave, the CIO at UZ Gent, a university hospital in Belgium. I also spoke with Atul Mistry, VP of Technology at Urix, an ISV in the healthcare industry.
Both Bart & Atul indicated that their organizations had .NET skills and re-training their developers (teams of less than 20 in both cases) for JEE was not a viable business option. Bart suggested:
"If I had a larger team, I would add JEE-specific development skills. But I could not meet my customer's time-sensitive demands if portions of my team were out getting re-trained".
UZ Gent uses RHEL and other OSS products and looks for opportunities to expand OSS use as appropriate.
Atul said:
"Business is the key decision criteria for us. If you have to reinvent the wheel because of a religious technical belief then you are not doing the right thing for your business."
Urix has customers whose IT environments are largely Unix based. Faced with not addressing these customers or adding new staff to port the application and continue development on Unix, Urix made the business decision to use Mainsoft. Urix also uses OSS technology such as log4net and other OSS technologies aimed at Microsoft developers.
Both organizations are believers and users of open source products. But, for these two companies, business results trump beliefs. I suspect this is the case for the majority of customers. This is why I believe that OSS will never truly "take over" the software world, nor will OSS fade away. Pragmatic customers wouldn't allow either to occur.
Customers have to be pragmatic because their business depends on it.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on August 8, 2007 01:29 PM
July 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Zack asked:
So perhaps a question that might be worth asking is if Windows and Office only costs $3 in China, how sustainable are it's prices in other markets?
I remember reading about multinational companies consternating about selling online in the early days of the Interweb. Most companies sell at different prices in different markets. But until the dawn of widespread e-commerce, purchasers in different geographies couldn't easily compare prices across geographies. Today, I can easily find the price of an iPod for American customers vs. here in Canada, but I've never checked. I know that the US price won't change my decision or acquisition strategy.
Is a $3 Windows & Office package for students going to have a marked impact on comparable prices in other parts of the world? Sure, to some degree. But I'd argue very little. The growing concern about open document standards may likely have a larger impact.
Now to the larger question of Microsoft's strategy in India (& China):
This is based on a sample size of 2 cousins in India. One completed a business & IT degree and the other completed a degree in computer engineering. As they tell it, having a MCSE designation is critical to getting many IT jobs in India.
My cousins have grown up with Microsoft Windows & Office in their homes and in the local internet cafes. Most kids learned to use Office & Windows in university. Because of their educational backgrounds, my cousins also learned Visual Studio, VB, SQL Server and fun stuff like administering W2K.
Playing Microsoft Strategist, I'm happy to sell Office & Windows to students for $3 if it means I have them hooked on an end-to-end Microsoft technology stack. Training the next generation of workers on Windows & Office makes it more likely that employers will purchase Windows & Office. Don't underestimate training & support costs that can be minimized.
No here's the kicker...the kids love Microsoft. We may want to believe that OSS would be best aligned with emerging countries especially because of the code freedom and lower costs. When I questioned my cousin why they weren't using Linux at his company (Large bank), he asked: "Is Linux as secure than Windows?"
Again, remember this post is based on a sample size of 2.
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on July 19, 2007 04:34 AM
June 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Ubuntu says "No Deal" to Microsoft
From Mark Shuttleworth's blog--No negotiations with Microsoft in progress
We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements.Allegations of "infringement of unspecified patents" carry no weight whatsoever. We don’t think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together. A promise by Microsoft not to sue for infringement of unspecified patents has no value at all and is not worth paying for. It does not protect users from the real risk of a patent suit from a pure-IP-holder (Microsoft itself is regularly found to violate such patents and regularly settles such suits). People who pay protection money for that promise are likely living in a false sense of security.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on June 16, 2007 04:43 PM
June 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Linspire the latest to sign pact with the devil, err, I mean Microsoft
Congratulations to Linspire for relegating their Linux desktop to the dustbin of technology. Just the fact that they have agreed to use Windows Live search as the default is pathetic. Nothing like making a mediocre product absolute crap by adding in lame Microsoft services.
"The companies did not go into the financial terms of the deal, but Kaefer said, "Clearly both of us expect to make money on the arrangement."
Right. Like Linspire and Xandros are going to see a windfall from this...maybe the payment they get from Microsoft will buy them another year of limping along. If Microsoft really cared about "interoperability” they would just buy one of these vendors and so some actual work on Linux rather than this pathetic life support.
In the past I have spoken highly of both Xandros and Linspire's goals for the Linux desktop. Now I think they are fools as they have relegated themselves to never being legitimate competition for Windows. Weak. Weak. Weak.
These Microsoft technology pacts are once again nothing but a further attempt for Microsoft to keep Linux and Open Source under it's thumb, thus ensuring that market share will be protected. The fact that the irrelevant players like Linspire and Xandros (I would even extend irrelevance to Novell) sign these agreements is an embarrassment to the rest of the Linux vendor community. These companies are selling their souls for a handful of pixie dust.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on June 14, 2007 09:58 AM
June 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft was once right on patents (but now terribly wrong)
Timothy Lee writes a compelling argument against software patents in the New York Times today. It's the very same argument that Bill Gates advanced back in 1991 against software patents, but now has done a complete about-face. As Lee writes:
[I]n recent years, [Microsoft] has argued that patents are essential to technological breakthroughs in software.Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is Microsoft. If only Microsofties were made to swallow the bilious hypocrisy they spew....Microsoft sang a very different tune in 1991. In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” Mr. Gates worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing” and use the patent to “take as much of our profits as they want.”
Mr. Gates wrote his 1991 memo shortly after the courts began allowing patents on software in the 1980s. At the time Microsoft was a growing company challenging entrenched incumbents like I.B.M. and Novell. It had only eight patents to its name. Recognizing the threat to his company, Mr. Gates initiated an aggressive patenting program. Today Microsoft holds more than 6,000 patents.
It’s not surprising that Microsoft — now an entrenched incumbent — has had a change of heart. But Mr. Gates was right in 1991: patents are bad for the software industry.
Part of the problem, however, is that once Pandora's patent box was opened, everyone was forced to patent to keep up. Patent silly things. Patent anything. I remember a presentation then Novell vice chairman Chris Stone delivered at the Hard Disk Cafe in Provo back in 2002. He said, much as Gates had before him, that Novell needed to secure more patents and even set a goal as to how many each quarter the company would amass (though I can't remember how many it was).
Why? Not because Stone was a patent troll, but because the patents could be used as defensive bargaining chips. It's Mutually Assured Destruction all over again, but this time with intellectual property, not nuclear bombs.
The only way I can see out of this is to continue to patent, but to grant them to organizations like the Open Invention Network. In other words, secure patents for everyone's security, and not solely that of any particular firm. Create a patent commons where people can innovate without worrying about land mines.
Interestingly, though, having patents isn't a prerequisite to prosperity. As Lee points out in his article, Microsoft made most of its billions well before it had the patents to scare others away. How? By making software that solved problems for consumers and businesses.
Imagine that.
Posted by Matt Asay on June 10, 2007 03:31 AM
May 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
SCO was Microsoft's patent warm-up act
PJ at Groklaw has uncovered this little gem from an exhibit filed in SCO v. Novell. Fascinating stuff. It's always interesting when you can finally read things that were intended to be private.
In this case, it looks like SCO was a definite precursor to Microsoft's patent charade, what with a "right to use" Linux, covenants not to sue, etc. Meager minds think alike?
So it looks like SCOsource was the first draft or dress rehearsal for what Microsoft is now trying with patents, all right, trying to find a way to neuter the GPL so it can tax Linux. That was SCO's dream too. As you'll see, Sontag speaks about a "right to use" license for Linux. That's what SCOsource was, or what it included. Linux users were supposed to pay SCO for a right to use Linux. Speaking of rights, what right does SCO have to decide who has a right to use Linux? Now Microsoft wants us to pay them too for a "right to use" Linux. It's like a hustle which requires vagueness about their claims -- they don't want any "infringement" fixed. They want to charge for it perpetually. Two dying companies trying to ride the Linux wave to survive a little longer by hook or by crook.To my friends at Microsoft: SCO is about the last company on this planet you want to be compared to. You are a great software company; you're a weak law firm. Try spending more time on the former, and less on the latter.I wonder if Microsoft crafted the Novell deal from what they learned about the GPL from the SCOsource experience? Or did Microsoft provide SCO with the legal strategy in the first place? We don't know yet, but I'll bet we'll find out someday.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 29, 2007 07:31 AM
May 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dave has another great post on Microsoft's supposed "fiduciary duty" to wave the patent FUD flag.
Imagine if, at Microsoft's next shareholder meeting, they said, "Rather than providing new innovation in the market for our consumers and potential consumers, we're going to stifle innovation at every opportunity. We're not going to innovate our business model either. Instead, we're going to use our size to force as many companies out of the software market as possible. We're going to use our patent portfolio to intimidate anyone who dares to enter our market. Additionally, we intend to spend as much money as possible to preserve our existing business franchises rather than explore new ones."Even if we take Sam/HIlf at face value on the fiduciary duty thing, let's remember that we're talking pennies on the dollar. Microsoft makes tens of billions of dollars selling products. The best it can hope for is a billion or so in patent license fees and, if all of its agreements look like the one it struck with Novell, then the money will be flowing out of Microsoft, not into it.The alternative statement could be, "Rather than rely solely on the successful franchise we've already built we will be spending our resources to invent new products, new capabilities and new business models. We intend to out-innovate any potential competitors and run faster than anyone else can run. No one will be able to keep up with us because we have the resources to invest like no one else."
Perhaps the reality is that Microsoft realizes they are structurally incapable of innovating and must rely on the first option, what I refer to as the buggy-whip strategy - preserve the existing business at all cost.
Regardless, Microsoft has a job to do, but its business is based on selling value, not patents, to customers.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 29, 2007 07:25 AM
May 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Novell - Microsoft Agreements Revealed
Today, Novell filed redacted versions of each of these three agreements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as part of its long-delayed Form 10-K Annual Report.
The agreements now available on the SEC web site are as follows:
* Business Collaboration Agreement : Under the Business Collaboration Agreement, Novell and Microsoft agree to provide a combined offering consisting of SLES and a subscription for SLES support with Microsoft Windows Server, Microsoft Virtual Server and Microsoft Viridian. The offering is specifically directed toward customers desiring to deploy Linux and Windows in a virtualized setting. In connection with the offering, Microsoft has purchased "certificates" from Novell that allow the certificate holder to redeem subscriptions for SLES support from Novell. Under the Agreement. Microsoft may either use or distribute the certificates over the term of the agreement.
* Technical Collaboration Agreement : Under the Technical Collaboration Agreement, Microsoft agrees to provide funding to help the two companies accomplish several broad objectives: (1) development of technologies to optimize SLES and Windows running in a virtualized setting; (2) development of tools for managing heterogeneous virtualization environments; (3) development of translators to improve interoperability between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice; and (4) collaboration on improving interoperability and management between Microsoft Active Directory and Novell eDirectory.
* Patent Cooperation Agreement : Under the Patent Cooperation Agreement, Microsoft agrees to covenant with customers of Novell not to assert Microsoft's patents against those customers for the customers use of products and services of Novell for which Novell receives revenue. In return, Novell agrees to covenant with Microsoft's customers not to assert Novell's patents against Microsoft's customers for their use of Microsoft products and services for which Microsoft receives revenue. In addition, the parties each released the other (and their customers) from any liability for patent infringement arising prior to November 2, 2006, with certain exceptions.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 25, 2007 06:17 PM
May 23, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Mary Jo asks the question whether some of Google's recent actions would pass the Microsoft sniff test.
If you want to evaluate the “evil” quotient of any company’s strategy/behavior, consider how you’d feel about it if it were Microsoft in the driver seat.Mary Jo then goes on to list a few things Google does that Microsoft would never be permitted to do (employees asked to refrain from wearing competitors' t-shirts, investing in the founders' girlfriend's/wife's startups, etc.). But after two days of OSBC, I think Mary Jo should be asking some slightly different questions.Robert McLaws of Windows-Now.com fame reminded me of my “Is Google evil?” litmus test in his post, “Google: The New Big Brother.” As McLaws paraphrased it: “When looking at any new Google venture, swap out the word ‘Google” with ‘Microsoft’ and ask yourself if you’re still OK with what’s happening.”
Google gets away with a lot. Eben gave a passionate presentation about not being someone else's free lunch, but Google routinely gobbles at the open source table while passing back comparative crumbs. And yet there's a constant drumbeat for Microsoft to open up. But not for Google. Why?
Eben suggests that we should encourage/shame Google into giving back. But this is not how copyleft works. It's not a matter of personal taste or principle as to one's adherence to the GPL. It's a matter of license. You modify, you distribute, you contribute back. Share and share alike.
I recognize that Google gives back code. Some of it quite interesting. But open source is not about picking and choosing when to grace the community with one's benevolence. It's about living up to the spirit and letter of a license. I firmly believe we need SaaS open source licenses. Licenses that will require Google to respect open source licenses...at least as well as Microsoft does.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 23, 2007 10:07 PM
May 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Like father, like son (Microsoft's patent progeny)
I was talking with a friend this morning, and he brought up a funny connection. Microsoft now holds the distinction of World's Biggest Patent Troll, but just a few weeks ago that distinction may have gone to former Microsoft CTO, Nathan Myhrvold, founder of Intellectual Ventures.
They reportedly have raised over $1 billion from many large companies including Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia, Apple, Google and eBay. Estimates range between 1,000 and 5,000 purchased patents and hundreds of original inventions. Investors gain protection from being sued over these patents, but the Intellectual Ventures intends to impose royalties on other companies.Apparently, as my friend suggested, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Maybe Gates, when he finally leaves, can set up a patent troll system of his own.
Except that he already sort of does. It's called Corbis, and owns the rights (along with Getty Images) to much of what you see (online, in print, in corporate brochures, etc.). As Gates told BusinessWeek:
Corbis has a special role with imagery and video to have a library that covers the world, both the history and the subject matter, and has it available in several different rights models. When you're trying to do a marketing campaign, Corbis is there to help out. Also, we're there with the rights clearance, some of the services around it, and also some of the software that makes it easy to find out exactly what you want.Perhaps they don't teach software design classes at Microsoft. Perhaps they just teach Copyright and Patent Law. I went to law school. Maybe I should have gone to Microsoft Law School.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 18, 2007 10:49 AM
May 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft + advertising may help it to drop the proprietary ball-and-chain
So, Microsoft is buying aQuantive (formerly known as AvenueA/Razorfish) in a $6B takeover of the advertising agency/consultant. It's an interesting acquisition, as Larry Dignan suggests:
On the surface, the integration of the two companies should be relatively easy. AQuantive, with 2,600 employees, is based in Seattle. And the capabilities and systems aQuantive brings to the table don’t overlap with Microsoft’s current structure that much. Microsoft plans to fold aQuantive into its online services unit.But I believe the acquisition brings something completely different: a way out of Microsoft's reliance on proprietary hooks into its software. I'm no Utopian - I don't believe that Microsoft is shedding its proprietary moorings anytime soon.Aquantive brings three primary systems to Microsoft: Atlas provides tools for publishers and advertisers to better monetize ad inventory; Drivepm matches campaigns and inventory; and Avenue A/Razorfish, which designs ads.
But I do believe that as Microsoft begins to experiment with alternative ways to monetize a product, it will learn that indirect methods may actually provide the key to its next $44B in sales. That's great for Microsoft, as well as the rest of the industry. Again, I'm not holding my breath, but I'm optimistic.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 18, 2007 09:45 AM
May 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft doesn't want to sue, but is the alternative any better?
I feel Bill Hilf's pain. He went on the record with Infoworld to counter some of the criticism that has erupted from Microsoft's incendiary comments in Fortune Magazine about patent violations in open source software.
Bill is a good guy, and I know from talking with him that the maelstrom isn't what Microsoft was trying to accomplish. Unfortunately for Bill, what he says is Microsoft's intent may well be worse than the lawsuits he suggests Microsoft isn't interested in.
Microsoft's goal is to tax open source. Period.
the Fortune article does not correctly represent our strategy. That's what has people so inflamed. It looks like our strategy changed and we are moving in a new direction, but it hasn't. In the Novell deal, we said we had to figure out a way to solve these IP issues and we needed to figure out a way for better interoperability with open-source products. The Fortune article makes it look like we are going out on this litigation path.Microsoft has every right to its intellectual property, and to earn a fair return on it. But given the way the company has gone about this, I just don't believe that is the end goal. Nor do I believe that Microsoft views open source in the same was as it does its potential proprietary licensees, though Bill disputes this:Our strategy from everyone in the company -- from [Steve] Ballmer to Brad Smith to me and everyone in between -- has always been to license and not litigate as it relates to our intellectual property.
We are very much calling out to commercial companies to license this stuff and resolve these issues. This isn't like a trivial invention. There are a couple hundred significant patents here.IBM makes over $1B each year licensing its patent portfolio, and obviously cares about getting paid for value. Yet no saber rattling. Yes, it has much to gain from open source, but it also has a tremendous amount to lose. (It's the second largest software company in the world.) Same with Oracle, HP, etc. All have significant patent portfolios.
Yet no one except Microsoft has set up a toll booth or, rather, a poll tax. You want to vote? Pay the tax. You want to participate in IT? Pay the Microsoft tax. Make free software (that doesn't necessarily violate any Microsoft patents but which violates Microsoft's business model) not so free. Kill the allure of free as in beer.
If there are patents being infringed, it's time to own up to them. But no one can with Microsoft's charade, as Tim O'Reilly noted. Microsoft wants to do it on a quiet, company-by-company basis. But that doesn't work in open source, because it's, well, open. More than one company to deal with. FUD works on an individual basis, but not in the open.
It's likely that Microsoft is violating patents underlying key open source software. I suspect that some open source projects are unwittingly violating patents, too. It's a minefield of spurious (and some substantive) patents.
But the way to resolve the mess isn't through closed-door meetings. It's through an open process. Microsoft would do well to set up the process before someone else does it for them.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 17, 2007 02:35 PM
May 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Some of the best thoughts on Microsoft's patent poll tax
Here are some of the best (new) commentaries on Microsoft's goofy publicity stunt:
- Linus smacks around the possibility that Linux violates Microsoft's patents, claiming it's more likely that Microsoft violates Linux developers' patents.
- Jerry Rosenthal of the Open Invention Network puts OIN's patents up against Microsoft's. Btw, if you're not a member of OIN, why not?
- PJ at Groklaw dissects the apparent lies that Novell and Microsoft tell each other. Novell/Peter Pettigrew, you really should have known better.
- Bill Hilf clarifies his out-of-character comments on the death of Linux. I was really glad to see Bill do this.
- Stephe Walli challenges Microsoft to sell value to customers, not FUD to customers/vendors (partners).
- Tim O'Reilly draws comparisons between 1950s McCarthyism and Microsoft. When you manage to get Tim against you, you know that you've gone too far....
- Stephen O'Grady wades into the fray with his usual diplomacy and measured response.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 15, 2007 04:07 PM
May 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Jonathan Schwartz to Ballmer: Try innovating, not litigating
Jonathan Schwartz offers free advice to Microsoft:
You would be wise to listen to the customers you're threatening to sue - they can leave you, especially if you give them motivation. Remember, they wouldn't be motivated unless your products were somehow missing the mark.Amen.All of which is to say - no amount of fear can stop the rise of free media, or free software (they are the same, after all). The community is vastly more innovative and powerful than a single company. And you will never turn back the clock on elementary school students and developing economies and aid agencies and fledgling universities - or the Fortune 500 - that have found value in the wisdom of the open source community. Open standards and open source software are literally changing the face of the planet - creating opportunity wherever the network can reach.
That's not a genie any litigator I know can put back in a bottle.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 15, 2007 07:53 AM
May 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
At least Microsoft is consistent
I'm not sure how I forgot this classic ditty from Bill Gates, but it does show a certain consistency in Microsoft's thinking...stretching over the last 31 years:
As the majority of hobbyists [open source developers] must be aware, most of you steal your software...[Y]ou...prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? [Red Hat, MySQL, JBoss, Alfresco, Zenoss, etc. etc.]...I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up...Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.The irony is palpable.
I'm sure there's a memo floating around Microsoft right now that says something like this:
>> I don't see Microsoft threatening hobbyists - I do see Microsoft spending a lot of time sitting down and talking to businesses who make money distributing Linux about intellectual property Microsoft's shareholders paid for and own - and doing so in a reasonable and constructive manner. As a Microsoft shareholder (& employee) I think it is entirely right that Microsoft does this, indeed I think Microsoft executives have a duty under law to do this.Somewhere, someone at Microsoft got the idea that it wasn't being paid enough for its intellectual property:
I don't know about you, but I kind of thought $44 billion would be enough for most people. But then, Emerson is right:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.31 years and a lot of cash later, Microsoft hasn't changed. It has shown a remarkable propensity for squeezing money out of the world, and that is (mostly) to its credit. But now its business model is in jeopardy, and that is precisely why Microsoft has gone on the patent offensive.
This isn't about IP. It's about Microsoft's "right" to a business model under siege; a business model that serves the vendor, not the customer.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 15, 2007 06:44 AM
May 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft appoints a "chief of licensing" (Dave Dargo)
I found this too funny...from Dave Dargo's blog:
Customer: I want to use my super-powerful computer to help me be more efficient.Read the entire thing. Quite funny and, unfortunately, spot on.Microsoft: Great, first you need to speak with our chief of licensing.
Customer: Who?
Microsoft: He'll help make sure you understand the terms of our licenses so you don't run afowl.
Customer: What's afowl?
Microsoft: Open-source.
It actually gels very well with Dave's earlier post on transparency (and Microsoft's lack thereof):
Yet, here we are with one of the most powerful companies on the planet apparently afraid to take on the open-source world in a direct way....The ironic thing in all this is that the only reason Microsoft can make frantic patent claims is because others have been far more transparent than it has. Open source has nothing to fear. Microsoft...maybe so?I believe they fear that their patents are unenforceable and probably a bit farcicle. Microsoft could stand up and say, "Here's a patent you've infringed. We worked hard to invent this clever, neat elegant solution to a difficult problem and you are stealing from us. This is the only way to solve this problem and we are confident that every court in the land will agree with us. Therefore, either stop infringing or pay us."
However, we see no such confidence from Microsoft. What does Microsoft fear more than open-source? I believe they fear what all little bullies fear - of being found out. There is no set of ingenious, clever, elegant solutions that they've invented for all the world to admire. There's nothing but noise, bluster and shadowy skullduggery.
Microsoft fears transparency.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 15, 2007 05:05 AM
May 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Making sense of Microsoft's open source fetish
Microsoft is nothing if not consistent. The company - despite its feints and dodges with the Linux Lab and what-not - has been highly focused on feeding its anti-open source fetish.
Today, that fetish reared its ugly head again. I've been waiting for some time for this Fortune article to hit (I was interviewed as part of Roger's due diligence). Roger Parloff does a good job of wading through the muck and getting to the heart of Microsoft's derision for all things open source.
Microsoft must be scared to death by open source.
Whatever Bill Hilf and his team may say (including staging an "open source kumbayah" event at the Open Source Business Conference), it is painfully clear that Microsoft is so dysfunctional when it comes to open source that it is determined to gnaw off the hand that could feed it for the next decade. Microsoft talks about welcoming in the open source ecosystem to its Windows ecosystem while simultaneously slandering the movement.
What is fascinating in Microsoft's bold (and specious) claim that various open source software violates "235" of its patents is the justification that Microsoft puts forward. It tries hard to plead the fairness of it all ("We just want to get paid for all this value we've created, just like everyone else does - buddy, can you spare a royalty dime?"), but appears to be aiming its patent portfolio almost exclusively at open source. The article notes cross-licensing deals with SAP, Sun, and others, but Microsoft is trying to bring its biggest patent guns against open source...its vendors and its customers:
Smith was not to be deterred. Since the GPL covered only di