Why I won't work for Microsoft

Several years ago while still working for Novell, I considered going to work for Microsoft in Europe. (Had I waited long enough, I could have worked for Microsoft while still at Novell, but that's another story, albeit one that is paying off well for Novell.) I thought I could help the company figure out open source and navigate the thorny issues that prevent it from embracing open source.

I gave up on that quixotic quest, and in retrospect it was the right decision. Sam Ramji, Bill Hilf, and others are doing a far better job of nudging Microsoft toward open source than I would have. But the bigger reason is that Microsoft has placed an apparently insurmountable hurdle in its path to fully engaging the open-source community, and to my ability to fully support its embrace of open source:

(Credit: CNET News.com)

Patents.

It's unclear to me why Microsoft refuses to back off this issue. It stands alone in its dogmatic insistence on fouling the open-source downstream.

Microsoft's solo crusade against open source through patents baffles me. It also prevents me from working for them or with them. I'm not alone in this.

I suspect that had Microsoft gone public with its patent crusade before it did deals with Zend, SugarCRM, MySQL, JBoss, etc., it might have netted fewer of these deals, too, because it pollutes the open-source partnerships it touches. It makes everything look like a patent pledge, rather than the interoperability agreements that these companies signed up to complete.

Notice how few open-source partnerships it has announced since its declaration that Linux violates its patents? It signs with also-ran Linux desktop vendors and skittish Asian OEMs, but not with the mainstream open-source startups that are taking open source into the enterprise. It used to sign these partners. Not anymore.

Why, Microsoft? Why not act like every other software company in the industry today and engage open source on fair and equal terms? Why not stop this silly attempt to box open source in rather than letting it help you build your business?

We're to the point that many commercial open-source companies are making it acceptable to integrate proprietary and open-source licensing into their business models. This means you can, too, without giving up your proprietary revenue stream. So why not engage?

All it takes is a softening of your stance on patent infringement. You'd give up nothing. You'd gain much.

[alibg]

ohhh come on! you wont work at microsoft because they didnt offer you enough...

[alibg]

ohhh come on! you wont work at microsoft because they didnt offer you enough...

[alibg]

or... did you actually get an offer? or just not enough money...<br /><br />I worked at Microsof, in the WinSE team, and its nothing out of this world. I dont know why you make such a big thing and explain why you dont work for them... let me ask you something, why do you work in your actual job?

[alibg]

let me explain where im going with this. Normally... people regret what they didn't do, not what they did. maybe you want to think about working at MS for some time and make up your mind, and get a better idea of what the "evil" empire is like... which is really not that different from the already-here Apple empire.<br /><br />at the end, even open-source helps some people make a living on services or support. so i'm not just putting that hat on.

[Matt Asay]

Actually, there's nothing with Microsoft that particularly bothers me beyond its patent stance. I generally like its products, like the people, etc. But it's the patent issue that I just can't wrap my head around, and it's that very same thing that prevents me and my company from working closely with Microsoft. We're not alone. I know of a range of open-source companies who hold back for this same reason.

[SwissJay]

4 Comments, 1 Person, sheesh!

[enovikoff]

I think what Matt's talking about here is arrogance. Microsoft and Apple are arrogant: they throw their weight around and try to control everything. It seems that success brings about arrogance. After all, why not? If you are successful, that must mean you are right about absolutely everything, right? It certainly seems so here in Silicon Valley where the Big Ego is the ultimate aspiration of most people. For those of us who seek some meaning in our lives beyond paying the bills, that isn't a paradigm that has much appeal. I don't knock having sufficient abundance in one's life, what I'm saying that that isn't a raison d'etre nor a justification for self-serving, childish behavior that you are going to be embarrassed about sooner or later - or be embarrassed by your stockholders, customers, or the market. Personally, it goes back to choosing to do what you love rather than something that makes you feel like a big shot. Kudos to you, Matt.

[ps84]

Wow.. The moment I saw the title of the post I knew its by Matt Asay. This guy is not allowed to write on cnet unless it is an microsoft or novell bashing article. How about something else for a change Matt? We all know by now, thanks to you, that MS and Novell are Satan and his sidekick respectively. And come to think of it you have not written anything but the MS-Novell patent deal. Are you the resident expert on how evil MS is? Instead of writing blogs/articles on cnet you should be writing comments on slashdot when a patent related "news" article is posted. I wonder why cnet is allowing these kind of reworded posts.

[Matt Asay]

@ps84: have you read my posts lately? I grant you that I've been very down on Novell in the past, but give me some credit: The last few months my posts have been much more open to Novell. Go back and re-read....

[mikalg]

Microsoft wouldn't have had you anyway Matt! No one wants you, you loser....<br /><br />***elbow's Matt in the ribs twice and laughs***

[wango2007]

Matt Asay--what a weenie. Open Source programs never work right (until the "next" version), and the nerds who create the stuff don't believe in documentation. <br /><br />Microsoft has a better business model- they can do without Open Source and guys like Asay, and production oriented users reap the benefits.

[The_Decider]

really?<br /><br />Then why is MS in decline and OSS on the rise?<br /><br />Why is OSS gaining in the business world more every quarter?<br /><br />MS can't live without OSS, that is why they made all of these pacts and are slowing moving towards open source.<br /><br />Microsofts business model worked when it could keep its victims ignorant.

[mvpcarl]

The_Decider - MS is in decline because, well, there's no where to go but down a little bit when you own a whole market. Wasn't it something like 95% a few years ago. There's only 100% to work with buddy...

[The_Decider]

MS has never had 95%. Ever, that is just the result of number manipulation. MS is on its way down for one simple reason: it has nothing of value to offer.

[Matt Asay]

Um...you just described Microsoft's product strategy exactly. Its first two iterations of a product are usually potty.

[mvpcarl]

@ Matt: How can you say "it's software is potty" right after you say "Actually, there's nothing with Microsoft that particularly bothers me beyond its patent stance. I generally like its products, like the people, etc." Sounds like you like its products - come on Matt - your comments don't even make sense. No wonder cnet was is such financial trouble, paying you is a waste of time...

[J. Blow]

Sure. Maybe you need to consider that they are "big, successful companies" because of their IP?<br /><br />I don't know what's so hard for people to accept about this. A person/company puts a ton of hard work into something. Then they want enough time to develop the market so they can be paid. When they are paid, they then pay their employee and give them stock options. The employees in turn spend the money in their respective local economys. Some of them leave and start new companies that in turn do the same thing, if they are lucky. Guess what? Everyone wins especially the general public. If you've been to Seattle you can see the effects of this very obviously. <br /><br />Is this hard to understand? The entire open source revenues equate to about a popcorn fart in the wind relative to Apple/MS. <br /><br />Meanwhile the amount of "inovation" coming out of the open source community amounts to copying 8 yo designs of Windows so I guess it is innovative too!

[The_Decider]

Then why is Vista a copy of Linux circa 2004?<br /><br />MS is a "big, successful company" because of its lack of ethics and a dumb move on the part of IBM.<br /><br />MS has created absolutely nothing new in its history. They are not a software company, but a marketing company.

[gary85739]

geez, give me back the time it took to read your article! note: I'll be smarter next time!

[john55440]

Yet another silly anti-Microsoft whine by Matt Asay.<br /><br />In the mean time, in another article, he praises the Mac; the most closed and proprietary computer on the market.

[The_Decider]

OSX is no more proprietary then a Windows box from Dell.<br /><br />Besides, OSX is light years ahead of Windows in terms of useful features, use of use, stability and security. It is also built on OSS.

[Matt Asay]

But you see, my post wasn't about proprietary. See my posts of late. I've not been talking down proprietary software as such. It's the patent club that I regret Microsoft using.

[The_Decider]

Software patents are invalid on their face. There is not one single, legitimate software patent, and I can say that without have seen the vast majority of them. The reason is that everything in software is significantly built on the work of others. Most of the patents I have seen are very obvious and not even close to novel. Most software patents boil down to a slight addition to an existing data structure or algorithm. Patenting software is as ridiculous as patenting a novel. Copyright is all the protection software needs. Within 10 years software patents will be declared invalid worldwide, even the US supreme court stated they are looking for the case to do just that, and the IT world, except MS will be better off. That will be the final nail in the coffin of the most inept, un-innovative, and corrupt corporation in the world.

[allynoop]

Amen Brother, Amen!

[ferretboy88]

They care about making money. When people try to steal your products you would be mad also. Why should people work hard and not get paid for it. Maybe the makers of video games should work on a game for 3 years then just give it away. Maybe your a jerk.

[The_Decider]

Maybe you don't understand his point or the philosophy of open source. That might be a good starting point so you don't write stupid things like "giving it away" anymore and looking like a truly clueless MS fan boy.

[Matt Asay]

Agreed, but Microsoft is using its patents in a very different way from every other software company. Oracle cares about its patents, too. So does IBM, which actually makes real money from its patent portfolio. But Microsoft doesn't act like either Oracle or IBM when it comes to patents and open source. It takes a very aggressive stance against open source *using its patents*. That's where the disconnect is.

[reng2005]

wango2007 said:<br />Open Source programs never work right (until the "next" version), and the nerds who create the stuff don't believe in documentation. Microsoft has a better business model- they can do without Open Source and guys like Asay, and production oriented users reap the benefits.<br /><br />Oh, I dunno. I just finished a web project (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://goodsexnetwork.com/" target="_newWindow">http://goodsexnetwork.com/</a>) and it's a roaring success. The project is completely based on open source: Ubuntu Linux Server, Apache2, PostgreSQL, Seaside/Squeak, and Darwin Streaming Server. The programs work just fine, and I've had no problems with documentation. (Ubuntu, Apache2, and PostgreSQL are well-documented. Seaside/Squeak is a bit weak but rapidly improving.) Open source rocks!<br /><br />Moreover, I use the excellent FileZilla FTP client and PuTTY SSH client for maintaining the server remotely. Again, well-documented and good performance. So I don't know what your gripe with open source is.<br /><br />I am one happy "production-oriented user"...and I avoided Microsoft and proprietary software.

[wango2007]

by reng2005 May 25, 2008 4:27 PM <br />---<br /><br />Nice ad for your web project. Obviously you're a nerd. Most nerds like Open Source. Real people think 99% of it is a waste for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

[reng2005]

Um, this comment editor is really stupid. It ignores line breaks and runs all paragraphs together into one big lump of text. How does this aid readability???

[reng2005]

J. Blow said: Meanwhile the amount of "inovation" coming out of the open source community amounts to copying 8 yo designs of Windows so I guess it is innovative too! He's wrong. Open source has been very innovative. Apache is still the best web server, better than anything MS has. Its feature set is phenomenal. Seaside is an incredibly innovative web development framework, better than MS's .NET, better than Ruby on Rails, etc. Linux has innovative user interfaces such as Beryl/Compiz. There are many examples of open source innovations. Innovations do not have to come from proprietary, IP-based, commercial sources.

[mikestatic1]

Good to see all of the Microsoft apologists are here. They are worse than the Apple-ites, because the product they defend is inferior.

[mvpcarl]

Wow... I love to read the stuff from good ol' Matt... Hater of all things established. Matt would rather work for a place that likely hasn't even turned a profit yet (does Alfresco even make any money?) Matt, you're lucky you weren't around a few years ago, you remind us of those commies... lol. Good luck buddy - continue to earn your $20-30,000 a year. lol

[The_Decider]

Another genius who doesn't understand OSS because he is afraid of it so has to resort to screaming commie! At least MS fans are consistently ignorant.