How to destroy goodwill. A Microsoft lesson
By now, everyone, including the yellow eyed penguins in New Zealand, have seen the Microsoft patent news around Linux. If not, check out this feed at Reuters.
In short, Microsoft claims that Linux violates 235 of their patents, and for the good of the world, will insist that these be licensed. Or else (nudge, nudge). Well the claim is that they'd prefer to license than litegate, but what would you expect in an interview.
Anyway the issue here is really not around Microsoft's claims, but rather around watching a multi-year initiative in open source outreach go up in smoke.
A few years ago, Microsoft started an open source initiative to reach out to the community, led by Bill Hilf, and Sam Ramji, Microsoft's OSSL and Port25 had a long hard path to acceptance, and even some trust. Over the past year, it's been interesting watching as the community (at least smart types) moved from the pre-conceived notion of Evil Empire to a stsed "These guys aren't that bad". In fact, at a recent Open Source Think Tank, Sam managed to clearly explain the concepts and forces behind the Novell-Microsoft licensing deal.
Years of outreach, resulting in positive good will... gone.
The Forbes article demonstrates the ever present danger in Microsoft, that the spokespeople may not be clearly aligned in content. While unspoken, the message came across, at least to me, as "Mama spank!", if the bad boys of open source don't stop all this nonsense and come back into the fold. In one fell swoop, the threat of patents, of legal attacks are all highlighted, outlined and identified. And all for our own good.
So what is it? Is Microsoft embracing the open source community, led by Port25, or is Microsoft out to destroy the underpinings of open source through the application of litigation.
It's not easy for large software companies to understand, much less embrace open source. Trust me, I can attest to this (with background in leading these initiatives at SGI and now Adobe). However, it gets much harder when the efforts are countered by voices on high.
In many ways, this is symptomatic of a company that fails to grasp the business concepts that open source can power. Note, I didn't say "open source business model". Open source is many things, but not a business model, instead it enables or acclerates business models. Sure, patent licensing or litigation is certainly a business model, but then, open source is an elusive target.
In short, I'm sorry to see that Microsoft, with the steps taken by Port25, have failed to be supported by its executives. Cause while Microsoft may think we are playing Monopoly (" Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200"), the open source world is building a whole new world.
As always, opinions are my own.
Comments
I can tell you the yellow eyed penguins in New Zealand, are pretty disappointed in M$
Posted by: Campbell | May 15, 2007 05:07 PM
"So what is it? Is Microsoft embracing the open source community, led by Port25, or is Microsoft out to destroy the underpinnings of open source through the application of litigation."
Well, it's like a lot of things... we on the outside see "Microsoft", but on the inside there are different groups, different goals, different sets of priorities. It's rare to see a group that's fully congruent, agreed...?
jd/adobe
Posted by: John Dowdell | May 15, 2007 06:17 PM
It's ironic that I visited Adobe blogs to leave a comment here about Adobe's own efforts at destroying goodwill ... and I find this as the top post.
So today, on a new laptop, I decided to download Adobe Reader. So I went to Adobe.com, clicked on the little button right on the front page and clicked on the big download button on the subsequent page.
I didn't really notice the little note that said "Also download Adobe Photoshop starter album" ... which was checked on by default.
The adobe download manager started up, and proceeded to download almost 30megs of installer files. This puzzled me. But I waited. After everything was downloaded, the install process was started, and suddenly I'm being asked to install this photoshop album thing.
Apparently Adobe is so interested in pushing this software that it will sneak in a 30MB download under your nose, and will then go ahead and try to install it *before* it even gets around to installing Adobe reader!
How is that for destroying goodwill?
Posted by: Shaon Amari | May 15, 2007 06:19 PM
Please explain how ensuring that patents are licensed conflicts with supporting open source?
It seems to be that you can have both at the same time. Just because you support open source doesn't mean you can ignore patents!
Patents have to be protected, just like trademarks.
[Comment: Note that I am not a lawyer, these statements are of my own opinion. That said, I agree that it is necessary and responsible to recognize and receive value for intellectual property. But this is a comment not on our legal process, nor on the "warning shot across the bow", nor on amnesty. It's on watching a group who has done amazing work in moving, in some cases, the opinion of Microsoft as evil, to Microsoft as "these guys aren't so bad". I'm sure Bill Hilf will clarify "what was meant" when he posts to Port25, but it seems that this is simply sensationalist on the part of Microsoft and on the press.]
Posted by: Philip Colmer | May 16, 2007 03:46 AM
I'm curious. If so, what's your position on Adobe's heaps of patents when some open source program violates it?
Posted by: charlz | May 16, 2007 09:54 PM
Or to put Sharon's comment a different way...
Why should making software open source exempt it from patents. If commerciallly licensed software from Adobe infringed Microsoft IP (or vice versa) you'd expect to see enforcement action. So why should making something open source get a software writer off the hook ? Do explain.
[comment: Actually, I wasn't opposing the enforcement of patents, I am suggesting that it would be useful for the good of Microsoft's own Open Source efforts to get stories aligned before contrarian positions are stated by executive. It's a goodwill issue I'm discussing, not a legal one. There is a difference.]
Posted by: James O'Neill | May 17, 2007 02:27 AM
"Why should making software open source exempt it from patents."
it doesnt, but linux doesnt infringe on any patents that are valid, right clicking, one down, rss two down, smileys 3 down
and so on...
"If commerciallly licensed software from Adobe infringed Microsoft IP"
as i said, the issue isnt
"its open SOURCE!" its
"what patents, you moron"
"So why should making something open source get a software writer off the hook ? Do explain"
it doesnt, xerox and apple invented the interface, window bordering exit buttons, double clicking and the like are not owned by microsoft, just because they have a product, or even a (removable in court) patent
Posted by: mike | May 17, 2007 10:30 AM
Getting the stories aligned.
Here's what Bill Hilf says in his latest post over at Port 25
I will also use this blog entry to clarify our work in the Open Source Software Lab. Here’s exactly what I tell my team, and the rest of Microsoft, on our strategy related to Linux and open source software:
-We compete with Linux and Unix servers with Windows server
-Many customers run a mix of servers in the same environment, so we’ll need to interoperate
-We want to grow the software ecosystem, including open source software, as it relates to Microsoft software
None of those things are arguments for a patent amnesty.
Mike. Unless you know what all 235 Patents are you can't really comment. And your assertion that if Linux infringes a Patent then the Patent is invalid, is - frankly - laughable.
Posted by: James O'Neill | May 18, 2007 09:08 AM
To the puzzled commenters: a program that you can't legally distribute is not open source, according to the Open Source Definition. Patents are a menace to open-source software in that they allow the patent holder to expropriate software that someone else wrote, which may have been open-source software for a while, and make it proprietary and charge rent on it.
That's why people are upset about this. Allowing patents on software is bad public policy, much worse than allowing patents on mechanical devices or drugs, as the patent laws of many countries recognize; one reason is that a single piece of software can so easily be vulnerable to such a large number of patents. Another reason is that mechanical devices and drugs have no equivalent of "open source", and thus no open-source movement that can be chilled by the threat of unjust expropriation of the kind threatened by Microsoft.
Posted by: Kragen Sitaker | May 18, 2007 10:29 AM
> Unless you know what all 235 Patents are you can't really comment. And your assertion that if Linux infringes a Patent then the Patent is invalid, is - frankly - laughable.
And until someone starts to point to specific patents, it's safe to assume they aren't very GOOD patents. Otherwise, why worry about challenges to them?
Microsoft doesn't want to specify their patents because they are afraid the angry FLOSS programmers will start researching prior art. But by NOT naming patents, they increase the likelihood that if they do sue someone, they'll have to explain why they refused to identify the infractions so they could be corrected.
One of the requirements of getting a patent is that you have to explain how the patent works; they're supposed to be for the benefit of the people. The reason they've gotten so bad in software is because they are being used for the good of corporations with large pockets and companies who don't produce products at all...
Posted by: Dark Phoenix | June 16, 2007 08:10 PM