Microsoft: We're all 'mixed source' companies
In case you were wondering, Microsoft thinks the battle of open source vs. proprietary software is basically over.
"Today, but increasingly in the future, we are all going to be 'mixed source'," Microsoft's top intellectual property lawyer said in a lunchtime interview on Thursday. To bolster his claim, Horacio Gutierrez notes Microsoft is releasing plenty of stuff as open source, while open-source companies like Red Hat often license commercial software alongside their open-source products. "I actually think the war between proprietary and open source is a thing of the past," he said.
Gutierrez: If every effort to license proves not to be fruitful, ultimately we have a responsibility to customers that have licenses and to our shareholders to ensure our intellectual property is respected.
(Credit: Microsoft)That doesn't mean Microsoft is ready to sing Kumbaya with Red Hat, or other companies that haven't made an IP deal with Redmond. While Microsoft is patient, Gutierrez indicated that Microsoft's patience is not unlimited.
"If every effort to license proves not to be fruitful, ultimately we have a responsibility to customers that have licenses and to our shareholders to ensure our intellectual property is respected," he said.
Microsoft has, on a number of occasions, asserted that Linux violates a ton of Microsoft patents, but Microsoft has never sued a company over those claims.
Gutierrez said he would like to keep that record intact, noting that the Novell deal, in particular, is an example of how working with a rival can ultimately benefit both companies.
It's generally thought that if you want to kill a good technical discussion, just bring in the lawyers.
But Gutierrez notes that it's often the complete opposite. In fact, he credits Microsoft's stepped-up licensing efforts that began five years ago for having helped the company find a way to talk to rivals that it had shunned in the past.
"It is truly a business mechanism to start discussions that weren't possible before," he said.
He notes that before software patents were in widespread use, companies were reluctant to share any technical details, jealously guarding all their know-how as trade secrets--another form of intellectual property protection that largely requires information to be kept confidential.
Patents remain a double-edged sword for Microsoft, however. Gutierrez said the company is defending about 50 patent cases at the moment--half of all the company's litigation docket.
While some are high-profile cases such as the disputes with Alcatel-Lucent, most are with companies that don't actually make goods related to the patents they hold.
In an effort to help head off patent disputes, Microsoft is an investor in Nathan Myrhvold's patent-buying Intellectual Ventures effort and has also made deals with several other such patent companies. "We've done deals with a number of others," Gutierrez said.
On the positive side, though, are deals like the Novell one, Gutierrez said. In the end, Novell has grown its business, Microsoft got added revenue and customers end up with products that work better together. Gutierrez wouldn't name names, but he said to expect more deals along the lines of the ones Microsoft struck with Novell and Sun Microsystems.
"We have tasted the opportunity to put IP to work in a very constructive way that leads to better products and more satisfied customers," he said.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
OPEN is OPEN and Microsoft is something else. Eat open dust Microsoft.
I can accept some software being not-free, but that just means I won't use it. I am willing to pay for good stuff even from Microsoft, but only if that what I pay for really becomes mine. Microsoft is letting people pay for things they will never own, and that's a bad thing to the bones.
Maybe you think software should be free because you think Google is free. Google is costing you more than you can possibly imagine. Why should I have to pay higher prices at the store to help pay for the ads that support a product I don't even use?
"I am willing to pay for good stuff even from Microsoft, but only if that what I pay for really becomes mine." Interesting because Microsoft has never asked me for an additional dime for the software I own. Heck, they even give me free updates/improvements.
Microsoft's willingness to work with other technical companies is good for everyone. Apple's closed business model is what will, hopefully, eventually lead to its demise.
You can't fix stupid, so I won't try.
Twins generally the same age! (give or take a few minutes)
First off, there is a very clear distinction between truly Free software and locked/proprietary software.
I'm guessing that MSFT is finally starting to move towards the third Phase of Ghandi's Maxim (as adapted to this situation):
First, they ridiculed OSS.
Then, then fought OSS.
Now, OSS will win.
/P
"So where do MIT, Apache, and BSD licenses fit in to your ecology?"
Shhh... it's not nice to point out the emperor has no clothes. Penguinisto doesn't like it when you point out the blatantly obvious flaws in his argument.
Let's see how he responds. Will he be able to address the concerns of Rapier1? Let's find out.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Also, recall that this is teh same Microsoft that openly referred to Open Source as a "cancer" (among a mountain of epithets and FUD) by its current and past CEOs.
So, sometime before Dan manages to extricate his foot from his mouth, maybe you could clarify what it is you're asking?
My take is that more options is better for both the publisher and the consumer.
Some people have gone over the deep end though. I recently read a post where a student was trying to get professors to release scientific software with no strings. The profs wanted the software to be freely available and for users to be able to modify it, but they wanted a mention in derivative products and in results from the software used for publication. The student thought that wasn't "pure OSS". Now, in a world where all a prof has is his name and reputation I didn't think that was a bad request. Especially since its pretty well expected in this world.
Too far left IS too far right. At some point the pendulum swings too far up and keeps going and CHOICE becomes MANDATORY CHOICE and freedom becomes a different kind of fascism...
Could that be because big Linux supporters like IBM have enormous portfolios of software patents that could be used against Microsoft or anyone else that threatens Linux?
I believe the term is Mutually Assured Destruction.
Furthermore you seem to make the same mistake as many, since your parameter is only desktop-systems. Honestly, even without being an enthusiastic Linux user, Linux rule the world already in some fields (85% of TOP500 for example), but not on the desktop. Even if figures of 1 - 3 % would be true when it comes to the use of Linux on the desktop it means there's a huge user base. Personally, and I know many are with me on this, I don't care about the "Linux will rule the world" thing, because I keep on supporting Linux as long as it gives me a better choice, quality software, the freedom of choosing how I compute, and as a bonus is great fun.
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/10/15.9.shtml
So let's see, the war was never a war; almost every other organisation except Microsoft
had accepted Open Source. Microsoft was arguably the only company going to town
about the EVILS of open-source. They spent a fortune, set up a surrogate in
SCO to kill Linux, commissioned 'surveys' that purportedly showed Total Cost of
Ownership in Proprietory Software was lower than Open Source. When this failed,
they threatened the univerese of Open Source users with a potential threat of legal lawsuit
a la SCO, saying Open Source violated 246 MS patents. After all this, we are expected to believe the war is over. Wonder who do they really believe, believes them?
- by hello_kittyhawk October 20, 2008 7:18 AM PDT
- Gutierrez is a typical corporate thug who is very good at causing the most damage while leaving the least amount of visible injury. Microsoft is *only* interested in "open" source because it's an irritant to be countered. As such, I read statements elsewhere like "Microsoft promises never to sue," etc. with the view that there still should be a sound of the other shoe falling through the air.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (36 Comments)"While Microsoft is patient, Gutierrez indicated that Microsoft's patience is not unlimited." - yup, that's the sound of one shoe dropping. They can't help it, it's the kind of critter they are: Microsoft, Monsanto, Madness, ...