The Open Road

Just how valuable are the Linux-related patents that Microsoft recently sold?

The Open Invention Network (OIN), a patent defense coalition for Linux whose members include IBM and Red Hat, trumpeted the news that it had bought 22 Linux-related patents from Allied Security Trust (AST) in a bid to protect Linux. Microsoft, which sold the patents to AST, claims the patents "weren't important," as noted in The Wall Street Journal.

Did the OIN get value or garbage?

Microsoft has long presented itself as the looming patent threat to Linux, once claiming that 235 of its patents are violated by Linux. But the AST patents, which cover 3D graphics, are apparently not among that group of core Microsoft patents allegedly violated by Linux.

If Microsoft didn't care about the patents, why should OIN?

It's a question ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley is asking, and rightly so. As CNET's Ina Fried notes, it's possible that Microsoft was looking to offload the patents to a patent troll, one that could litigate against Linux by proxy. This same strategy is apparently being used by Intellectual Ventures, a patent-holding (and trolling) firm that may be selling patents to litigious buyers to generate revenue.

OIN CEO Keith Bergelt speculates as much, insinuating that Microsoft may have "had ulterior motives" in selling to AST, a firm that has a "catch and release" policy that would see the Linux-related patents pushed back onto the open market after a year, and potentially fall into the hands of a patent troll, as eWeek reports,

But this seems like a rather klugey way for Microsoft to go after Linux. If it wanted to ensure the patents made it into the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) hands, it could have sold the patents directly to a Microsoft-friendly patent troll. The fact that OIN wasn't allowed to directly participate in Microsoft's patent auction says little about the company's ultimate (and allegedly "ulterior") motives.

Faith is great in religion--it's not a viable business strategy.

I'm left wondering just how much protection OIN scored for Linux with the purchase of these 22 3D graphics patents. If the patents were core to Microsoft, it wouldn't have sold them for simply the off-chance that the patents might eventually find their way to a litigious patent troll. Microsoft tends to be more direct with its anti-Linux message, a fact borne out by its recent scurrilous Best Buy training FUD.

I suspect that the patents truly weren't very important to Microsoft. This doesn't mean their value to OIN is diminished, but it's probably not time to uncork the champagne at the "coup" scored at the local patent yard sale.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Some believe that Twitter has the power to change big events like Iranian elections. I think that its strength may be in much smaller, but still significant, ways.

In fact, I was the matchmaker recently between a Barcelona cabbie and an American employee of a pharmaceutical company. Well, a matchmaker between the cabbie and this lady's BlackBerry, anyway.

It happened like this:

I have a Twitter search in TweetDeck that alerts me every time the word "Asay" is used on Twitter. (I need to be able to track down libel somehow!)

On August 30, I saw this tweet:

Hi! I'm a taxi driver from Barcelona. Somebody knows Jennifer Asay? She works for (pharmaceutical company). I've her Balckberry [sic].

I happen to be married to a Jennifer Asay, but not this one. So I looked up her name on the Web and quickly found her on LinkedIn. I reached out to her there to give her the e-mail address of the taxi driver, which he provided in his tweet. I also replied to him to give him her e-mail address. No big deal, right?

On Wednesday, I heard back from Raúl, the taxi driver:

Hi! I am the taxidriver from Barcelona.

She has found me thanks to you.
I will be with her for I will give back its telephone.
Thank you very much by your work.

Raúl

Nice, right? It gets better. Today, I heard from Jennifer, and it sounds like everything worked out, thanks to the power of Twitter (and LinkedIn):

I can't tell you how grateful I am that you reached out to me....by a miracle, Raúl brought me my BlackBerry today!

What are the odds? In our increasingly networked world, the odds are getting shorter all the time.

Again, it's a simple story, but one rich in possibilities too. Think about it. A twittering taxi driver reaches out to the massive echo chamber that is the Web and is heard by a complete stranger in Utah who also uses Twitter (me), who then turns to LinkedIn to find the sought-for person and connects them over e-mail.

There are lots of problems in the world. Communication--at least the possibility of communication--isn't one of them.

P.S. There's a very good chance that I've now ruined Jennifer's life by getting her back in touch with her BlackBerry addiction, but I want this story to have a happy ending.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay. And if you find my iPhone, please tweet it. :-)

Each year InfoWorld sets out to rate the "best open source products" with its Bossie awards. Too bad it has decided to cloud the voting with open-source politics, as well.

The politics reveal themselves when InfoWorld tries to settle on a winner between Zenoss and OpenNMS. (Why Hyperic isn't also in that mix, or Reductive Labs' Puppet, I can't fathom, but...)

The editors write (note: the emphasis is mine):

Although Zenoss clearly has the more developed feature set, our Bossie goes to OpenNMS. The reason boils down to business models. OpenNMS is a purely open source software project, meaning that customers get the complete set of features available for free as open source. There is no "enterprise" version. OpenNMS makes its money strictly by selling support and training services.

Zenoss uses a common business model in the open source world: it provides an open source version of its software with a limited feature set for free, and it sells a more extensive "enterprise" version of the software with support through an annual subscription. So while Zenoss may be a good value compared to HP or IBM or CA, it's not a good value compared to OpenNMS.

If only enterprise IT could cavalierly discard superfluous things like "features" in favor of licensing ideology. But it can't, which is why Agilent, Telstra, Accenture, MySpace, and other companies that need enterprise-grade network management systems have been opting for Zenoss. They seem to need those pesky "features" that InfoWorld glosses over. They're buying a product, not a political platform.

Regardless, if we allow business model to be a valid factor in InfoWorld's decision criteria, how are we to explain its contradictory decision to judge Intalio the winner in the Business Process Management (BPM) category? The editors reason:

Intalio has been criticized regarding its open source claims, most likely because the company does not provide source code on its Web site (where binaries of the free community edition can be downloaded). However, Intalio's enterprise edition customers do get full access to source code, and the source code of community edition components -- which fall under Apache and Eclipse licenses -- are obtainable from their community-based repositories....

However, new beta features reflect enterprise needs, including a business rules engine, Ajax-driven forms for easier editing, and a more streamlined deployment interface. The full enterprise edition also includes BAM (business activity monitoring), a portal interface, ECM (enterprise content management) based on Alfresco, fail-over clustering, and support for application servers beyond Apache Geronimo.

I think Intalio is great, but I can't understand why Zenoss' business model is considered a demerit but for Intalio, which has the same model, it's a non-factor. Zenoss also provides source code to its enterprise customers, so why is Intalio right because it provides an enterprise-class experience with an Open Core model but Zenoss is wrong for doing the exact same thing?

Personally, I think awards should be given based on the merits that will most appeal to IT buyers, and such will have little to nothing to do with business model nuances and everything to do with solving business problems at a compelling price. If Zenoss is the better enterprise IT bet, shouldn't it get the Bossie, regardless of OpenNMS' licensing model?

InfoWorld set out to name the "top open source products." By deciding, instead, to name the top open-source products and business models, it has failed to serve its audience as well as it has in the past. The Bossies are still a good resource, but it's best to read the reasons behind some votes carefully, as they may have nothing to do with the products at all.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay

What would Google look like if you took it offline and forced it to set up in physical space?

Google's tens of thousands of commodity Linux servers would need to be scattered around the globe so as to collect and then aggregate consumer interest. A lot like Path Intelligence, in other words.

Tim O'Reilly invested in Path Intelligence back in 2007. After lunching with Path Intelligence CEO Toby Oliver Friday in London, I can see why. The idea is to set up receivers in shopping malls and other retail areas to collect mobile data and analyze consumer behavior to help optimize lease rates, retail setups, etc. It's a big idea. Huge, even.

But it's what comes after this initial phase that has my brain hopping.

Path Intelligence's initial phase could prove somewhat costly, as it seems to require a sales force and hardware development/assembly to gain a critical mass of property owners to adopt its service. (The software, based on the open-source GNU Radio project, is free, which helps to keep costs down.)

But once Path Intelligence has a reasonable amount of distribution, the network effect of its business is absolute manna from heaven.

Just like Google.

Importantly, Path Intelligence is highly useful to retailers and others that want to optimize physical space (for retail, conferences/exhibitions, or whatever), even if the company never acquires another customer. If I'm an asset manager and want to know the most highly trafficked location in my shopping malls (e.g., so that I know where to charge the highest rent), I can easily get that data from Path Intelligence's service.

It dawned on me, however, that once a critical mass is attained, Path Intelligence can start selling subscriptions for the data to marketers everywhere, and could even start offering targeted advertisements to consumers while they're shopping. If I'm Ralph Lauren, I want to know that customers at Nordstrom who stop at the Faconnable display never make it to my displays, and then negotiate with Nordstrom to change my position.

And if I'm shopping at The Gap, I'd love to get an SMS ad that suggests I head to H&M for $10 off (perhaps sparked by data in the Path Intelligence system suggesting that a significant percentage of shoppers who go to The Gap later move on to H&M). It's good for me, and good for the retailer.

If this sounds like a privacy nightmare, Path Intelligence isn't blase about the issue. All information collected is anonymous and Oliver told me the company refuses business with organizations that may want to take a Big Brother approach to the data.

Google's advertising machine works because users constantly tell Google what they want. Path Intelligence, in physical space, is much the same.

It's a Very Big Idea, and very similar to Google. At scale, Google is unbelievably powerful because of the data that powers it. At scale, Path Intelligence could be the same.

Importantly, however, Google is useful to companies that simply want to search their internal documents or Web sites, just as Google Desktop is useful to individuals who want to unlock the clutter on their machines. Path Intelligence is immediately useful to retailers and property managers, but it becomes even more powerful once it has a sufficient body of data coursing through its servers.

Path Intelligence has just started raising its next round of funding. It's still in its early stages, but that's what makes it so exciting.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Last week I suggested that open source still has work to do to penetrate the SMB (small to medium-sized business) market. Immediately various open-source companies started contacting me, either corroborating my contention or contradicting it.

Untangle is in the latter camp.

Untangle CEO Bob Walters talked with me in 2008 and indicated the company's switch to open source had paid serious dividends. As I learned in this follow-up email, the momentum has accelerated, as shown in the graph at right, and it's apparently all coming from the hard-to-reach SMB market.

Untangle sells software that allows small businesses to securely connect their local networks (LAN's) to the Internet. In other words, Untangle is a "secure network gateway" company, as Bob describes it. The company has now open sourced roughly 90 percent of its code, which is given away free of cost, and then charges for advanced features, similar to the business models used by SugarCRM, Zimbra, and others.

That move to open source has proved beneficial, as can be seen in how deployments have soared since Untangle open sourced its code. But I still wanted to know how Untangle successfully reaches the SMB market, particularly in light of the fact that Untangle doesn't build appliances which might make the software easier to adopt than a download-and-install-it-yourself model.

Open source has helped turn Untangle's customers into a self-reinforcing community:

Nothing sells like free during a recession. And those 18,000 active Untangle sites become both spokespeople for and prospective customers of ours. It's then our job to put highly-useful complementary commercial products in front of them.

Well over 99 percent of our customers have fewer than 100 employees. These include accounting firms, professional services firms, retail franchises, and small government agencies/offices. We are also popular for schools, especially private middle and high schools. (These can sometimes exceed the 100-user mark.)

Fine, but how do you reach such a scattered, tight-fisted market?

... Read more

It's said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Vyatta, an open-source competitor to Cisco and Juniper, has now taken of several recent steps toward commodifying the existing networking software market, including a deal with the New Mexico Court System.

The reason for choosing Vyatta over Cisco and Juniper? As described in a case study (PDF), Vyatta delivered great functionality at a super-low price, according to Sam Noble, senior network system administrator, New Mexico Courts:

The No. 1 reason we went with Vyatta was the flexibility and the peace of mind, knowing that if we came up with an issue, we'd have lots of avenues to address it from...We considered using Cisco 2600 routers or a Juniper firewall and VPN, but both of those fell short in some key areas.

I downloaded and tested the Vyatta software and found that it gave me all the features and functionality I needed, great performance and, hands down, the most flexible system around. After test-driving the software, I knew I had found the ideal solution in the Vyatta open networking appliance.

New Mexico Courts went into the evaluation assuming it could save money, but the most important thing that Noble relates is the key enabler in the process: a free and unobstructed download. As I've noted before, that download is the key to derisking IT investment, one that is getting CIOs' attention in a recessionary economy.

Why should a prospective customer take a risk on software when they can know well before they buy - if they buy at all - that the software will work? This is the new face of sales, and it's something that open source like Vyatta delivers.

Part of Vyatta's value proposition is all the cost savings and flexibility Noble identified that comes after the implementation and sale. But the initial value proposition is that organizations like New Mexico Courts System don't have to rely on a vendor to spoon-feed them value. With a free download, the enterprise owns the future of its IT.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

I admit that I can't figure out the new Cisco Systems. It's making a big push into consumer electronics, as reported by CNET, adding things like home audio systems to its portfolio of products.

In tandem, it's building out a corporate collaboration story, complemented by things like telepresence solutions.

Does Cisco still provide networking equipment?

The answer, of course, is yes, but I wonder if the company risks diluting its brand as it makes forays into markets beyond networking. Perhaps that's the point.

Cisco has been exploring new markets in order to find new areas for growth, a normal pursuit by megacompanies, both in terms of new products and new geographies. This is what companies that measure their revenues in billions of dollars must do in order to grow by billions of dollars.

But I'm losing track of just what Cisco stands for, and I assume that I'm not alone in this. Even as the company grows, it needs to maintain a common theme to that growth. It says it "enables people to make powerful connections--whether in business, education, philanthropy, or creativity." That's a great mission, but how does home audio fit into that statement? Making powerful connections with one's music in one's home? I don't get it.

Sure, Cisco isn't alone in overstepping the boundaries of its mission. Microsoft's entry into the gaming market with the Xbox doesn't exactly fit into its implicit corporate mission to reduce the cost, and improve the ease of use, of software. Perhaps once a company reaches a certain heft, it doesn't need to have every division singing to the same sheet music.

Even so, I can't shake the feeling that Cisco still has a lot of room to grow within its general "networking everything" mission without getting into things like home audio. If you disagree, please let me know why.

Vyatta, the open-source networking company, has been turning on the heat lately against Cisco, the networking giant. Even as Cisco expands beyond its networking base with collaboration products, Vyatta's sole focus remains beating Cisco network performance at rock-bottom prices.

And yet, as called out in a recent TechTarget article, Vyatta's biggest obstacle may well be Cisco's strong brand:

Tony Iams, an analyst with Rye Brook, N.Y.-based Ideas International, said the networking market continues to grow, but Vyatta faces a challenge because Cisco has such a strong brand name, and companies are reluctant to gamble with networks because they are so critical to operations.

"Open source can be disruptive with a cheaper product," Iams said. "But Vyatta has to overcome a lot of skepticism and reassure customers that they aren't sacrificing quality."

Here's a suggestion of how to do just that: remind CIOs that the world's most demanding network (aka "The Internet") runs open source, and that even Cisco is boosting its network product line with open source-powered routers. If it's good enough for the Web, and good enough for the top network equipment vendor powering that Web, maybe Vyatta isn't such a risk, after all?

With over 20,000 downloads per month, a number that is dramatically higher than Vyatta was seeing in early 2008, Vyatta seems poised to do well through the financial downturn. The ironic thing is that as Cisco pushes more of its products to Linux, it may actually end up seeding the market...for Vyatta.

O'Reilly Radar's Ben Lorica writes that Facebook has been growing steadily on a global basis, and suggests through the data that Facebook adoption is deep and widespread. Most intriguingly, he finds that in North America working-age users is the fastest growing demographic, while the teen segment is growing much more slowly.

I could have saved him some time. Yesterday I got my haircut, and Valerie, the lady that has cut my hair for the past 20-plus years, started talking to me about how she uses Facebook. Valerie is one of the least technically-adept people I have ever met. If she's using Facebook, the entire planet is.

Take my mother, for instance. I wrote before that my mother has started IM'ing me through Facebook, which was a pretty good indicator of mainstream adoption of the social-networking service. Between Valerie and my angel mother, I have enough proof without reading a shred of statistical evidence that if I wanted to find my fourth-grade crush, I'd almost certainly find her on Facebook. (In fact, I did.).

The big question for Facebook now is how it will monetize that widespread adoption. I still find Facebook tedious and time-wasting. Things like its Facebook Connect service may make Facebook relevant to me without me having to "go to" Facebook.com, and is a step in the right direction.

But Facebook needs to figure out how to make "friends" on Facebook meaningful, both in commercial and other contexts. Once it has done so--once it has effectively mapped my social graph--it wlll have data that it can turn into dollars. At that point, Valerie and Mom will be able to enjoy Facebook while it enjoys dramatic revenue growth, which will be good for all involved.