A Fortune article announced that Microsoft says open source software, like Linux – which much of corporate America runs on – violates 235 of its patents. Microsoft wants royalties, and if it gets its way, free software stops being free. But, asks Fortune, royalties from whom?
Sun president Jonathan Schwartz hits back on his blog, suggesting that Microsoft innovate, not litigate. And, he warns the behemoth:
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.
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). … 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.”
Yet, Jennifer LeClaire predicts in CIO Today, “Sun might be the next tech giant to ink a deal with Microsoft.”
“Wow,” says Amanda McPherson, the Linux Foundation’s marketing director,
“Microsoft must really be threatened. … I urge everyone to see this for what it is: a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) campaign. Don’t let Microsoft or anyone else get away with it.”
I’m not a lawyer, or a software developer, so I don’t know enough about Microsoft’s legal issues to comment on them. But I do know Microsoft’s products and their “you’ll have to wipe out your hard drive and re-install Windows” customer service from an ex-consumer who switched to Mac point of view, and I don’t think fondly of them on either count.
My friend, the fabulously talented Hugh Macleod, who is working for Microsoft on a rather mysterious campaign he calls The Blue Monster, says this week’s news is “kinda giving me conflicting emotions.” He says “People will use the news to re-affirm what they already believe.”
And maybe he’s right, but I don’t think Microsoft is creating a lot of new supporters at the moment.
Microsoft also isn’t winning friends with its daily “updates for your computer” messages. What are these updates? Well, they’re some sort of MS spyware to see if your copy of Windows is legit.
Memo to Microsoft: I bought my computer directly from Dell. If Dell is loading pirated versions of your operating system onto its machines, then there’s a huge problem. Otherwise, leave me alone.
I still have a windows laptop and it seems like every time i turn it on a microsoft download is forced. Apple is so much easier to deal with on the software front.
Martha, B.L. – you can turn off the updates in Control Panel.
I own a Mac Book Pro and see similar updates when I turn that on. Over 20 last month. I agree with you though, Apple is easier to deal with. When you’re supporting thousands upon thousands of devices and applications on a platform is become s a little more tricky. Not sure we’re comparing Apples with Apples here. Pardon the pun :)
As for the litigation, here is what Bill Hilf recently said on this
““It’s not us versus the free world. It’s about commercial companies working together around IP issues – it’s business as usual,” the pair added.”
worth a read of http://port25.technet.com/archive/2007/05/18/business-as-usual.aspx for the update
Both Amanda McPherson’s comment and your final one are right on the nail. It’s idiotic – possible short term gain, certain long-term damage and loss for Microsoft.
The one bright point, however, is that if MS persists and a major battle ensues then it may work to hasten the demise or radical overhaul of the absurd and quite out-of-control (at least in the US, Europe is managing slightly better) patents system which generally stifles rather than encourages innovation.
I’m part way through Joseph Stiglitz’s Making Globalization Work and I’m heartened to see him making exactly that point. Nobel Laureate, former Chair of Clinton’s economic advisors, former World Bank Chief Economist, now an academic at Columbia U, Stiglitz is experienced and knowledgeable and quite unequivocal in his view of the current patents structure as a corporate weapon and a force for ill in terms of innovation and public benefit.