Microsoft Is Throwing Money Away

Redmond Channel Partner ^ | 18 July 2007 | Lee Pender

[ShadowAce]

James Bottomley is really on top of things (sorry -- we had to say it) when it comes to Linux. The CTO of SteelEye Technology is also on the board of the Linux Foundation. In that capacity, he helps smooth the transition of disparate Linux organizations into the still fairly new Foundation.

As such, Bottomley's obviously got some insight into Microsoft's continued patent deals with Linux distributors.

Those patent deals took another turn this week as Redmond claimed that its deal with Linspire didn't cover software developed under the latest version of the license that governs Linux use, the now infamous GPLv3.

Bottomley is an open source believer, but while he's, let's just say, "critical" of Redmond's business practices, it's important to point out that he's not necessarily anti-Microsoft. (SteelEye, in fact, is a Gold Certified Partner.) And his perspective on Microsoft's fleecing of Linux distributors is not only that it isn't really fleecing at all -- but that it might just end up being a huge waste of time and money.

Novell opened the lid of Pandora's patent box in part because it needed to reassure customers that Microsoft wouldn't sue them for using Linux and thereby, in Redmond's view, violating Microsoft patents, Bottomley told RCPU this week.

"You can tell customers that they're safe and give them all the reasons for it, but there's nothing like a worthless piece of paper to reassure them," Bottomley said.

He also mentioned that the $348 million that Microsoft is paying Novell as part of the deal -- including $240 million up front -- probably didn't hurt, either.

"If somebody offered me a quarter of a billion dollars, I'd probably sign just about anything for it," he said, and we have to admit here at RCPU that we'd be waiting with pen in hand, too (just in case anybody wants to make an offer).

So, in that sense, Bottomley isn't impressed by comparisons (like a few made here) of Microsoft to mobsters making their local collection rounds using a patent lawsuit as a replacement for concrete shoes. After all, what kind of mobster ends up coughing up most of the protection money? In fact, while Bottomley clearly doesn't seem to trust Microsoft (the words "particularly ruthless" came up in a description of Microsoft's business practices), he's not convinced that Redmond is necessarily out to destroy the open source movement.

"Nobody truly knows what they're up to," Bottomley says. "It won't be an attack on Linux until Microsoft sues somebody."

And that, for Redmond, might be the hard part. As Bottomley points out, Microsoft isn't likely to sue its customers for violating patents. And suing Linux distributors wouldn't be all that easy, either -- especially since the open source community is prepared to fight back should Redmond want to go to court.

"If [Microsoft] found the knife, they'd use it -- but I don't think they found the knife," Bottomley says, referring to patent violations. He rattled off a few of the Linux community's defenses: "Patent law is supposed to protect people who wish to publish their ideas. I suspect these ideas were never published. Whoever invented [something] first is entitled to the patent -- it wouldn't be unlikely to be [the open source community], in which case the patent would be invalid."

Bottomley also noted that a lot of the patents that Microsoft claims that open source software violates are innovations that just about anybody with a good working knowledge of software development could have come up with eventually -- thereby making them impossible to patent. He says that he doubts whether any of Microsoft's claims will ever see the light of day in court.

So, why all the controversy and rancor over Microsoft's patent deals? And what's the endgame in the Microsoft-Linux patent war? There might not be one, Bottomley suggests, except for Microsoft being out a bunch of money and both sides continuing to take shots at each other.

"What they've come to now is pure name-calling," Bottomley says. "The only way [the open source community] would test the GPLv3 is if Microsoft were to sue someone." Since that's not likely to happen, Microsoft is just wasting its time and money "unless they have some incredible master plan that I don't see," Bottomley says.

Right now, we're all waiting to see what that master plan is. But we at RCPU suspect that one exists -- Microsoft, after all, didn't become Microsoft by throwing away money.

[ShadowAce]

People are gonna attack the source, I know. I don't put much stock in that defense.

[kevkrom]

I don’t get why the author seems to think that Linux is governed by GPLv3 — in fact, Linus has explicitly said he’s not going to use the new license, and that he’ll continue working with GPLv2. (Not to mention that most component applications, et. al., have multiple developers/contributors, and all of them would have to agree in order to modify the license.)

[ShadowAce]

Yeah, I know. But I think his main point is valid—MS is just throwing money away with no tangible return. They cannot, realistically, sue anyone over the supposed patent violations, which means the patent “deals” made with Novell and others are just hot air.

[kevkrom]

Of course they can't sue -- it's all a bluff and if they actually sue anyone, then they have to come up with specifics rather than just scare tactics.

And we see how well that worked for SCO.